[ J K 

fclfeT 

_ W62 -PH£ MINNESOTA 
LEGISLATURE 
OF 1909 















Book_ 

Copyright N?__ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 





i W4")^ 


^9 f 


The Minnesota Legislature 
of 1909 


A History of the Session, with an Inside 
View of Men and 
Measures 


LYNN HAINES 

720 New York Life Bldg., Minneapolis, Minn. 




COPYRIGHT 1910 
LYNN HAINES 


©GI.A5:5f;o3i. 


A 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


3 


A Foreword. 

A few years ago a distinguished American scholar, 
in a public address, pointed out how, from time to time, 
the moral leadership of the American people had shift¬ 
ed from one class of leaders to another. At one time 
moral leadership came principally from the clergy, at 
another from lawyers, at still another from college 
professors, etc. Coming to our own day, he hesitated, 
apologized for apparent flippancy, assured his hearers 
that he was in sober earnest, and then declared that our 
moral leadership now comes principally from the “ten 
cent magazines.” The allusion was to their “literature of 
exposure.” On the other hand. President Roosevelt, 
himself both a product and a producer of such liter¬ 
ature, has fastened upon it the name of “muck raking.” 
That trenchant phrase, expressed perhaps in a moment 
of exasperation at some of its undeniable shortcomings, 
and not representing a deliberate judgment, has con¬ 
tributed powerfully to create prejudice against that 
type of literature among thousands of persons who or¬ 
dinarily are foremost to welcome and applaud any new 
forces that make for better things in American life. 
The true estimate of the “literature of exposure” prob¬ 
ably lies between these two extreme views. Often 
sensational in expression, harsh in its judgments, and 


4 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


sometimes mistaken in its facts, it is, nevertheless, one 
of the most powerful factors in the life of our day, and 
none but the temperamentally or wilfully blind can 
fail to perceive that, taken as a whole, it is doing a 
noble work in the war for higher civic ideals and the 
discovery and application of more honest, more enlight¬ 
ened, and more humane methods of carrying on the 
work of society in the United States. 

This book belongs to the '‘literature of exposure.” 
It is an honest, sincere attempt to inform the people of 
Minnesota about the actual methods by which the laws 
of the state are made. As such it deserves candid, dis¬ 
criminating, yet sympathetic perusal by every friend of 
good government. The author has made a close, care¬ 
ful personal investigation. His opportunities for gath¬ 
ering information have been extensive. In his zeal 
for better government and for the public interest as 
opposed to private interests, he may, at times, have 
fallen into errors both of fact and of judgment. The 
signers of this foreword can not vouch for the complete 
accuracy of the book. They do attest their unqualified 
confidence in the author’s honesty, sincerity, and sin¬ 
gle-minded devotion to the public welfare. The wit¬ 
ness is undoubtedly qualified to testify. Let his testi¬ 
mony speak for itself. 

S. M. OWEN, 
WILLIS M. WEST, 

T. J. KNOX, 

JOHN H. GRASS. 
STILES P. JONES. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


5 


In the Beginning. 

‘‘The voice is Jacobis voice, but the 
hands are the hands of EsauT 

Like Esau, when the world was young, the people 
of Minnesota seem to have despised their political 
birthright, saying, “and what profit shall this birth¬ 
right do to me?” The great mass of the voters have 
yet to learn the power of the ballot and the value of 
the individual protest against the mess of pottage, 
which controlling political combinations give to the 
people in exchange for their inheritance. 

The great captains of industry realize only too well 
the necessity of having the government a friendly part¬ 
ner in their business. They know that in order to 
control the resources of wealth theirs must be the 
dominating force in the political machinery of the state. 
And in order to shape government for their own bene¬ 
fit, they have recourse to an adroit system of political 
deception. Though the methods differ from those of 
the days of Isaac, there are all too many hands covered 
with goatskin, reaching out for the inheritance of the 
land. 

That bit of Bible history shows that politics has 


6 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


remained much the same throughout the centuries. 
The campaign between Jacob and Esau centered about 
the possession of the father’s blessing—one of the rich 
special privileges of that political epoch. Jacob and 
his mother pooled their interests, and collaborated in 
the scheme to deceive the aged Isaac. When Jacob, 
successfully masked as the elder brother, appeared to 
claim the parental blessing, Isaac, blind and in dotage, 
gave expression to the prevailing political doubt of 
our own day—“the voice is Jacob’s voice, but the 
hands are the hands of Esau.” 

That ancient incident illustrates well the methods 
of modern politics. The people, heedless of the value 
of their birthright of citizenship, and blinded by par¬ 
tisanship and the subtle misdirection of public opinion, 
cannot easily discern how they are being betrayed by 
their representatives. And the practiced eye can see 
the parallel of the scheming mother and son in the al¬ 
liance of the professional politicians and the predatory 
corporations with whom our story has to deal. 

I first heard Jacob’s voice and saw the hands of Esau 
in Minnesota law-making at a caucus of the Seventh 
District Republican House members in Granite Ealls, 
in December, 1906. This caucus was called to take 
action in the selection of a speaker for the pending ses¬ 
sion. Most of the candidates for that position were 
present—some with voices and hairy hands that did 
not harmonize. 

Wells and Nolan and Hugo and Johnson and Rockne 
were there, each seemingly present for the sole purpose 
of demonstrating that he was to be the winner. Even 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 7 

then, ignorant of the fundamental principles of politics 
as I was, it amazed me to see how the band-wagon argu¬ 
ment moved the unpledged Seventh District members. 
Their whole concern seemed to be to pick the winner. 
Like myself, they had been taught to believe that good 
committee positions were everything, and that all 
their legislative influence and usefulness would be lost 
unless they were with the winner. I felt, rather than 
understood, the forces that were at work. I knew that 
the caucus, in executive session, called in each of the 
candidates, one at a time. I knew that these candidates 
were questioned, not as to what they stood for or how 
they would use the great powers and opportunities 
of the speakership, but as to their strength as candi¬ 
dates, their chance to win. 

It was my lot to see and study almost every session 
of the 1907 legislature, and it gradually dawned upon 
me that this ‘'picking the winner” was the least im¬ 
portant of the many issues involved in the selection of 
a presiding and organizing officer of the House. In 
much the same evolutionary way I came to under¬ 
stand also that the Senate machinery was so manipu¬ 
lated as to make beneficent legislation almost impos¬ 
sible. 

Again, during the session of 1909, I had an oppor¬ 
tunity to continue my observation of the system’s 
methods, and to study the system’s representatives. I 
then saw things more clearly, because I knew where 
and how to look. And it impressed me powerfully to 
witness how a legislature could manifest so little of 
statesmanship, so woeful a lack of patriotic plan and 
purpose. 


8 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


This story of the session of 1909 does not attempt 
to turn the spotlight upon more than a small part of 
the duplicities and iniquities of our legislative life. 
Nor can it hope to unmask all the political Jacobs that 
have done the bidding of the private interest and Big 
Business Rebeckahs of the State. But it is my hope 
chat it may serve to suggest something of the real sit 
nation, and to stimulate a more general study of men 
^nd measures in Minnesota law-making. 

I have no quarrel with individual legislators, and 
no desire to bring them into disrepute with the peo¬ 
ple. This book, therefore, does not discuss two of 
the most deplorable phases of legislation—straight 
out-and-out bribery, and the persistent use of the al¬ 
lurements of the more flagrant forms of vice to break 
down the moral stamina of men and bring them under 
the control of the system’s agents. These, singly or 
in combination, have been responsible for the ruin of 
many a man -who began his political career with no 
other purpose than to work for the public interest. 

I know of members who have taken money for their 
votes and influence—sometimes when they did not 
vote and had no influence. All manner of bribery has 
been used—from the seemingly innocuous practice of 
ticket giving, up to the buying off of “leg pulling” 
schemers, and on into that insidious, but even m.ore 
demoralizing kind which consists in furnishing tips on 
the option market, and actual gifts of stocks and bonds 
—the more subtle, but equally effective methods used 
on occasions by Big Interests with legislative axes to 
grind. 

Lest this history seem to suggest too much of the 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


9 


unwholesome in law making, and too little of patriotic 
endeavor on the part of members, let it be understood 
that the last legislature contained some of the ablest 
and most conscientious citizens of the state. I would 
willingly devote every page to their work; but it is 
necessary, rather, to emphasize those forces and in¬ 
fluences which tended to neutralize or nullify their 
efforts at reform. 

Among the members who stood conspicuously for 
the public interests were: 

Senators B. E. Sundberg, A. L. Hanson, Thomas E. Cash- 
man, Victor L. Johnson, John Moonan, Ole O. Sageng, J. T. 
Elwell, Jos. M. Hackney, Manley Fosseen, C. J. Gunderson, 
O. O. Canestorp, E. H. Canfield, J. J. Ahman, O. K. Naeseth, 
S. A. Nelson, F. H. Peterson, S. B. Bedford and O. G. 
Dale. 

Representatives H. O. Bjorge, J. N. Johnson, E. E. Adams, 
John Sangstad, C. M. Bendixen, W. C. Bicknell, J. A. A. Burn- 
quist, W. A. Campbell, N. J. Holmberg, C. J. Swensen, J. O. 
Hauglund, Kerry E. Conley, Thos. H. Horton, Jno. Holten, 
C. E. Johnson, H. A. Putnam, J. J. Opsahl, C. J. Wright, A. K. 
Ware, Iver J. Lee, E. E. Lobeck, John McGrath, G. H. Matt¬ 
son, C. K. Melby, C. L. Sawyer, C. L. Sulerud, John Rustad, 
John A. Sampson, E. M. Nagel, C. J. Carlson, Jos. Davies, T. 
E. Noble, J. F. Rosenwald, Henry Rines, Thos. Kneeland, 
and W. D. Washburn. 

To such this volume is dedicated. It must be devot¬ 
ed largely to the leaders of the other class, with com 
paratively little comment on the legislative character 
and work of the middle class of members in both 
branches who did not stand very consistently for either 
the people or the pool. 






•j 

3 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 11 


CHAPTER I. 

THE POOL, THE POLITICIANS AND THE PRESS. 

Pennsylvania is still known as the political estate of 
Quay. Some critics hold that our own commonwealth 
is nearly as bad. I can hardly believe this to be true. 
But it cannot be disputed that in both states the bad 
political conditions are principally due to three influences: 

First, each state is the home of a number of powerful 
corporations which have pooled their political interests 

Second, politics has been elevated, or perhaps I might 
better say degraded, into a profession in which some of 
the brainiest of manipulators devote their time and talent 
to the service of the corporations. • 

Third, actual conditions and the real character of public 
men are kept concealed and public opinion perverted by 
the press of the state, particularly the largest city dailies. 

CONCERNING THE CORPORATIONS—Among the 
predatory interests that are merged for the political con¬ 
trol of Minnesota are: (1) The Steel Trust, which is 
practically the same as Standard Oil; (2) a number of 
transportation systems known legislatively as “the rail¬ 
road ring;” (3) The Minnesota Liquor Dealers’ Associa¬ 
tion, which includes all the saloon and liquor forces in 
the state; and (4) a number of public service corporations, 
like the Twin City Rapid Transit Company. 

Each of these special interests sends its quota of repre¬ 
sentatives to the legislature—the steel trust a few, the 
railroad ring a few, the brewery combine a good many 
and every public utility company its quota. None of 


12 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


these could control alone. That is why all unite their 
forces and form a single controlling combination. 

The corporations composing this pool represent vast 
political and financial resources. With all their forces and 
influences united for the accomplishment of a common 
purpose, working through the all powerful committee sys¬ 
tem of legislation, with their methods and their political 
employees screened from publicity, it is not at all difficult 
to account for the success that has crowned their efforts 
to control in the legislature. 

SERVANTS OF THE SYSTEM—No one will presume 
to deny that the interest of the corporations forming the 
pool is not the public interest. Nor will anyone deny that 
the record of members upon measures affecting these spe¬ 
cial interests is a fair test of what they represented in the 
legislature. Judged in that way, which will be corroborated 
later in a detailed discussion, a few conspicuous servants 
of the system are entitled to notice here. 

The commander of the coterie of politicians that man¬ 
ipulated things in the last legislature was Senator E. E, 
Smith, of Minneifpolis. An entire volume might be writ¬ 
ten about his character and achievements as the legislative 
representative of Big Business. So far as I have been 
able to learn he has no other business except to play 
politics and run the legislature. 

Personally Smith is a princely fellow. I like him and 
so does every other man who knows him well. That 
is the secret of his success. Were he not so likeable he 
could never have become what he undoubtedly is today— 
the biggest personal power in Minnesota politics. 

Smith’s lieutenants are almost invariably the presiding 
officer and such colleagues as Calhoun, Laybourn, Hall, 
Stephens, Sullivan, Campbell, Dunn, Hinton, Pugh, Vail, 
and Seward. In the House Smith works with and through 
such representatives as Brady, Dalzell, Dorsey, Doyle, 
L. H. Johnson, Kling, Lennon, MacKenzie, Nimocks, W. 
A. Nolan, Rodenberg, Rowe, Selb, Stuart, Thayer, Wells, 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 13 


F. B. Wright, and Zelch. Others in both branches, popu¬ 
larly regarded as reformers, are just as essentially associ¬ 
ates of Smith and servitors of the system. 

THE PUBLIC PRESS—This attempt to tell the story 
of the session would be unnecessary if the daily papers 
were doing their duty. But instead of fulfilling their mis¬ 
sion of enlightening the people and directing public opin¬ 
ion for the general good, some of the largest city dailies 
are employing their almost immeasurable influence to 
misdirect the public mind and dull the public conscience. 

These newspapers know all about Senator Smith. They 
possess complete information regarding the legislative 
conditions that he and his followers have worked to create. 
But hardly a suggestion of the truth ever creeps into their 
columns. On the contrary, most of the papers labor in 
season and out to deceive the people into the belief that 
such men are patriotic and of full statesman stature, 
j This problem of publicity is the most perplexing phase 
of the whole political situation, and it is becoming more 
perplexing with every passing year. The corporations and 
politicians realize that the state of public sentiment must 
determine how far and how long any injustice can con¬ 
tinue, and they have organized most of the agencies for 
diffusing information into a medium of misrepresentation. 
That is the modern and “respectable” way of getting 
results. 

The old way was through raw graft and bribery. They 
still colonize voters and stuff ballots in isolated cases; 
they still influence elections and shape legislation in the 
primitive way; but it is easier and safer now to use the 
public press to so shape sentiment that intelligent and 
conscientious citizens will vote professional politicians in¬ 
to power, not knowing what they do. 

I have in mind two significant examples of how the 
best intentioned people have been misled by the public 
press into supporting the wrong kind of candidates for 
the legislature. The first case is that of W. A. Nolan of 
Grand Meadow. For years he was so persistently paraded 


14 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


before the people of the state as a sincere reformer that 
he was generally regarded and accepted as such. At one 
time he was prominently in the field as candidate for 
Speaker of the House and even now is being given some 
consideration as a prospective lieutenant governor. 

F. E. Nimocks of Minneapolis is in the same class and 
should share with Mr. Nolan the distinction of being 
one of the two most pernicious politicians in the House. 
And yet the newspapers have made known so little of his 
real character that when a candidate for re-election to the 
last legislature he was able to secure the endorsement of 
many of the most substantial business men in his district. 

Nolan and Nimocks are somewhat exaggerated ex¬ 
amples, yet they are typical of the class of politicians that 
dominate in Minnesota law-making. The real significance 
of the political reign of such men can be appreciated only 
when one comprehends their relation to the great corpora¬ 
tions that control the rich resources of the state. And the 
real meaning and menace of the situation as a whole is 
apparent only when we realize the almost omnipotent 
power of the public press as it protects the politicians and 
serves their masters. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 15 


CHAPTER II. 

THE SPEAKERSHIP. 

To be Speaker of the House of Representatives is to 
occupy a position and possess a power in the making of 
laws greater than that of the governor of the state. The 
Speaker organizes and sets in motion the machinery of 
the House; he selects its committees; he directs its busi¬ 
ness. So far as the lower and more numerous body is 
concerned, the Speaker is the key to the control of the 
legislature. Backed by no more than forty confederates 
in control of the important committees, a corporation 
speaker can block and delay and distort the reform efforts 
of the other seventy-nine. Manipulation of the machinery 
means everything; and the character of the Speaker al¬ 
most entirely decides whether the House shall be organ¬ 
ized to serve private interest or the people. 

The speakership fight preliminary to the 1907 session 
was unique and interesting in many ways. It resulted 
in. the selection of the corporations’ choice for that office, 
and must be explained in order to make plain the contest 
of 1909. 

At that time there were six men in the field as candi¬ 
dates for Speaker, but only three were prominent in the 
race. These were L. H. Johnson of Minneapolis, Ambrose 
Tighe of St. Paul and A. J. Rockne of Zumbrota. The two 
last named were men whom the corporations feared to 
trust in so important a position. Mr. Tighe never ap¬ 
peared very formidable, for the reason that he had not 
been a member at the previous session and was not well 
known to the newei? representatives, and in additions he 


16 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


was the very kind of candidate that the city press would 
not advertise. But it was different with Mr. Rockne. 
He had many elements of strength, and it was to ac¬ 
complish his defeat that things were “framed up” with 
Lawrence H. Johnson as the candidate of the pool. 

There were at the finish six candidates: Messrs. John¬ 
son, W. A. N^olan, Wells, Hugo, Tighe and Rockne. In 
reality, in response to the manipulation of Smith and 
the interests, the candidacies of Nolan, Wells and Hugo 
were hardly bona fide, these men being stalking horses 
for Johnson. In the ninth Wells came out to hold that 
district away from Rockne until the Johnson combination 
could control. It was the same with Nolan and his dis¬ 
trict. And ultimately the same situation developed in 
relation to Hugo and the Duluth steel trust representa¬ 
tives. It was the corporations against the people. With 
only Johnson and Rockne in the race the people would 
have won; so the combination was accomplished; John- 
son-Nolan-Wells-Hugo vs. Rockne, and in the final analy¬ 
sis the quartette meant just one man. 

The candidacy of R. J. Wells for Speaker was a farce. 
It was obviously a game to help Johnson and bring politi¬ 
cal plunder to Wells. But it assisted the scheme. A few 
of the younger, newly elected representatives in the ninth, 
who would naturally have supported Rockne, were pre¬ 
vented from taking that stand during the crisis of the 
contest. 

It was through W. A. Nolan that the scheme worked 
the greatest injury to Rockne. “Reciprocal Demurrage” 
Nolan, by reason of his improvised reform reputation, was 
able to accomplish much for his political friends. This 
he did in the speakership fight by yielding to the solicita¬ 
tion of Senator Smith to become a candidate—in the 
interest of Johnson. Votes had to be kept away from 
Rockne. It is a well-known fact that Smith attended the 
first district speakership caucus and that he helped to ac¬ 
complish the results of that caucus, which declared for 
Nolan, as the Johnson forces wanted it to do. 


Tpie Minnesota Legislature of 1909 17 


It caniiot be asserted that Hugo was a stalking horse 
for Johnson at the start. This candidate no doubt began 
his campaign intending to win for himself, if possible. But 
later, as he and his friends discovered that he had no 
chance of success, he became an instrument in the hands 
of the combination crowd. Following a secret conference 
in an upper room in the Merchant’s Hotel in St. Paul on 
the seventeenth day of December, 1906, Hugo returned to 
the lobby and announced that he had withdrawn from 
the contest in favor of Johnson. That settled the fight. 
L. H. Johnson was chosen speaker. 

It would scarcely be too much to say that every interest 
with a legislative ax to grind was favorable to Johnson for 
Speaker. So far as corporation activity has come to light, 
their support was all on the side of the Minneapolis man, 
with the possible exception of certain Flour City brewery in¬ 
terests which at first made the mistake of thinking that 
Johnson’s promises to the Anti-Saloon League would be 
fulfilled. The Minnesota Liquor Dealers’ Association had 
the situation sized up differently. Early in the contest 
the attorney who represented the saloon people became con¬ 
vinced that Johnson would be “fair” and he undoubtedly 
was. It is said by men who ought to know that their 
lawyer personally picked the members of the temperance 
committee. In this connection two things are certain; 
(1) That the saloon interests had no reason to complain 
over the results of the session; and (2) that Speaker 
Johnson was certainly “fair” to them not only in the 
selection of the temperance committee, but also in permit¬ 
ting them to be represented by such saloon lobbyists as 
ex-Representative Selb, in daily violation of Rules 42 and 
65 of the regulations under which the House was sup¬ 
posedly governed. 

The railroad representative who was most active for Mr. 
Johnson was Solicitor Root of the Milwaukee system. Mr. 
Root is perhaps the most expert politician of all the Min¬ 
nesota railroad men who are interested in the great game 
of legislation. He is both smooth and shrewd, with strings 


18 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 

of influence extending in numerous directions all over the 
state. Just prior to the settlement of the speakership con¬ 
test on December seventeenth it is said that Mr. Root 
“got busy” tightening his strings here and there. By 
means of the long distance telephone he communicated 
with his friends throughout the state, seeking to start a 
band-wagon movement for Johnson. 

Another specific instance of corporation support for Mr. 
Johnson is supplied in the activity of the Twin City 
Rapid Transit Company in his behalf. On the day before 
the primary election the street car company procured 
several thousand copies of the Minneapolis Tribune, each 
of which contained a sample of the official ballots. Out 
of these papers they cut the portion containing the ballots 
and after being marked to indicate the candidates for 
which they wished their men to vote, these were given the 
employees as they left work in the evening. The name 
of L. H. Johnson was among those checked. A large 
number of street car employees reside in Johnson’s dis¬ 
trict. 

Johnson and Rockne were again the leading candidates 
for Speaker of the last session. The former would un¬ 
doubtedly have suited the interests better than his rival 
but the situation had changed materially in two 3 'ears. 
Rockne himself appeared to have changed. 

Up to a certain critical stage of the 1907 session Rockne 
was recognized as the floor leader of the reform forces. 
And he certainly seemed to merit that distinction. Then 
came the culmination of the terrific tonnage tax fight of 
that year and the Zumbrota man turned about and at the 
last moment helped to defeat the bill. He had previously 
consulted with the framers of the bill and was considered 
one of its staunchest supporters, so his reversal of attitude 
occasioned much surprise and no small amount of un¬ 
complimentary comment. Personally, I have never been 
able to explain the change. But it should be said that 
Rockne was then supremely interested in the passage of 
his very meritorious anti-watered stock bill and he may 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 19 


have been led to believe that if he helped the Duluth dele¬ 
gation accomplish their chief purpose they would recip¬ 
rocate in the interest of his railroad reform. If this 
“trade” theory be true, it only remains to notice that it 
didn’t work’out, for the pool was too compact and power¬ 
ful, Both Rockne’s bill and the tonnage tax fell by the 
wayside in the 1907 session. 

Whatever the cause, Rockne changed and he has not 
been the same fearless champion of the people since. 
Probably it was ambition that promoted the change; per¬ 
haps at that time the steel trust assured him of the speak¬ 
ership at the next session. At any rate that interest backed 
his candidacy and together with the brewery-controlled 
Ramsey county members turned the tide in his favor, and 
he was duly installed as Speaker of the last legislature. 

Please do not forget the existence and activity of the 
pool. This composite creature is always of particular im¬ 
portance when one considers the speakership. Two com¬ 
ponent parts of it—the steel trust and the liquor forces— 
seemed positively agreeable to Rockne’s candidacy. “The 
railroad ring” seemed passively to consent because no 
very vital issues affecting those interests were likely to 
come before the session. The railroads were safeguarded 
by having the whole rate situation somnambulating in the 
courts. And the public service corporation class felt rea¬ 
sonably safe, at least after seeing the machinery set in mo¬ 
tion, by having such members as Nolan and Dalzell on 
guard at the gateway of crucial committees. 


20 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER III. 

HOW THE HOUSE WAS ORGANIZED. 

Speaker Rockne, as organizer of the House machinery, 
had an opportunity to place the more important com¬ 
mittees in the hands of the better class of members. He 
could have done this without any violation of the partisan 
idea that “to the victors belong the spoils;” for it happened 
that almost all of the real reformers were his supporters 
for the speakership. This need not necessarily signify 
that he was an ideal candidate, but as between him and 
L. H. Johnson those who were for the people generally 
choose the lesser evil. But the pool had little reason to 
complain at the way things were organized. 

The steel trust was, of course, chiefly concerned in the 
personnel of the committee on Taxes and Tax Laws. 
John Dalzell of Renville County was given the chairman¬ 
ship of that committee. No better selection could possibly 
have been made, from the view point of the steel trust. 
Among the members of that committee were such unpro¬ 
gressives as L. H. Johnson, Rines, Borgen, Congdon, 
Wells, Zelch, Thayer, Nolan, MacKenzie, Selb, Dorsey 
and Gates. A good working majority were either sincerely 
against the tonnage tax or else insincerely for it. 

“The railroad ring” is always interested in the tax 
committee and in the committee on railroads. The latter 
was headed by J. O. Haugland of Chippewa County. He 
was an insurgent, but his committee contained too many 
such men as W. A. Nolan, Brady, Christianson, Lennon, 
Nimocks, Goodspeed, Graham, Congdon and Wells. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 21 


The Minnesota Liquor Dealers’ Association certainly had 
no cause for complaint as to the make-up of the “temper¬ 
ance” committee. Of its fifteen members ten were solidly 
and unalterably opposed to every anti-saloon measure that 
came before them. 

The public service corporations came most directly in 
contact with the committee on Express, Telephones and 
Electric Lines. The chairman of that committee was the 
masked reformer, W. A. Nolan, who was aided in attempt¬ 
ing to carry out the Twin City Rapid Transit Company’s 
legislative program by such committee associates as Brady, 
Conroy, Lennon, L. H. Johnson, Kling and Grant. 

A number of other standing committees bore an impor¬ 
tant relation to the control of legislation, but I shall call 
attention to only one of them at this time—the committee 
on Rules and Joint Rules. Its chairman was Henry Rines 
of Mora, a well-meaning member, but lacking in apprecia¬ 
tion of how vitally the rules and the system are related 
to all that is done. J. N. Johnson of Yellow Medicine 
County was one of the five members of this committee. 
He was one of very best men in the House, but was serv¬ 
ing his first term and not in a position to realize wherein 
the methods of legislation needed reforming, until the rules 
of the session had been adopted.. The three majority mem¬ 
bers of this coniittee, tried and “dependable” manipulators, 
were White, Dalzell and Austin. 

As an organizer Rockne deserves criticism. But as a 
presiding officer he was probably the ablest and fairest 
that the House of Representatives has ever known. 


22 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER IV. 

SMITH AND THE SENATE. 

Our national congress is controlled by its committees, 
dominated by the men who in turn control the committees. 
In the House Speaker Cannon controls the machinery. 
The higher body is popularly supposed to organize its 
own staiiding committees. This task naturally falls to’ 
the Rhode Island gentleman who is so largely the United 
States Senate. The Minnesota Legislature follows this 
general plan. 

Theoretically, the Lieutenant Governor selects the com¬ 
mittees of the body over which he presides; in practice, 
the appointing is done by Smith in the Senate. Mr. Smith 
would probably deny this, just as Aldrich denies that he 
rules the House of Lords at Washington; and so perhaps 
the majority of the members of the Minnesota Senate 
would deny the fact of Smith’s supremacy. Some would 
refuse to admit the truth because they do not know; others 
would disagree because it is to their interest to shield 
Smith and conceal their own subserviency. 

One of the “unmanageable” country senators once said 
to me: “It ain’t true that Ed Smith runs the Senate. He 
never said a word to me about voting against anything.” 

“Do you know, Mr. Canestorp,” I answered, “that you 
have unintentionally paid yourself the highest compliment 
that you could possibly receive? Of course Smith doesn’t 
ask you to help carry out his schemes. He knows too 
well that you wouldn’t stand for anything against the inter¬ 
ests of the people and that it would be hazardous and 
foolish to show his hand to such men as you.” 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 23 


That is the way it goes. The Smith crowd is a kind 
of close corporation whose secrets and schemes are care¬ 
fully guarded from those senators whom they cannot trust. 
That is how it happens that many of the progressive mem¬ 
bers of the Senate itself are about as ignorant of his in¬ 
fluence as are citizens on the outside. That is why I do 
not expect any corroboration from either his friends or 
his enemies in the Senate. But I make these statements of 
his czarship, not caring for either protest or approval, be¬ 
cause I know them to be true. 

The real organization of the Senate begins before the 
session starts. For one thing, the “patronage” has to 
be doled out, which brings Smith into prominence, be¬ 
hind the scenes. Senators who seek important clerkships 
or other positions for their political friends do not go 
to the Lieutenant Governor, or if they do the matter ulti¬ 
mately comes around to Smith. His slate is the one that 
wins. Even one of the progressives when asked to appoint 
a certain young man as one of the Senate employees ad¬ 
mitted that he would have to go to Minneapolis to see 
Smith. 

The opening session of the Senate is given largely to 
routine resolutions. The performance is interesting and 
instructive because it furnishes a good line on Smith’s lead¬ 
ing lieutenants. The resolutions are prepared previously 
and members selected to introduce them. For example, 
on the first day of the last session: 

Mr. Laybourn of Duluth and the steel trust, introduced 
the resolution naming a long list of employees; 

Mr. Sullivan, attorney for the Twin City Rapid Transit 
Company, presented the resolution authorizing the Secre¬ 
tary of the Senate to purchase stationery and supplies. 

Mr. Seward introduced a resolution in reference to the 
rules, which was an indication that he had been slated for 
re-appointment as chairman of that committee. 

Senator Dunn, of Hamm Brewing Company fame, re¬ 
solved some pages into existence. 


24 The Minnesota Legislature oe 1909 


Mr. Hall, champion of the railroads, offered a sergeant- 
at-arms resolution. 

Mr. Seward gained recognition again and moved the 
appointment of nine members on rules and without the 
least hesitation the President of the Senate named: Sew¬ 
ard, Smith, Schaller, Campbell, Hinton, Durment, Aider- 
man, Laybourn and Stephens—reactionaries, every one. 

Then Cooke, Clague and Peterson followed with unim¬ 
portant resolutions. The last named senator was in no 
sense of the Smith type, but was “noticed” in that small 
way in the hope that he would make less trouble in the 
session when the ax fell removing him from the chair¬ 
manship of the committee on finance. 

That was the only change made in the standing com¬ 
mittees. It looked bad to single out just one senator for 
slaughter but Smith and his associates knew that it was 
necessary. Control of the Committee on Finance, which 
corresponds to the Committee on Appropriations in the 
House, was absolutely essential in all their plans and they 
could not manage a fearless fighter like Peterson, so he was 
deposed and Stephens of Crookston placed in that posi¬ 
tion. The latter was not only “safe” but a very large 
individual factor in “the system.” 

Smith himself was chairman of the Committee on Taxes 
and Tax Laws, a carefully chosen body containing Coller, 
Calhoun, Stephens, Laybourn, Thorp, Putnam, Hinton, 
Seward, Cooke, Anderson, Dunn, Sullivan, Alderman 
Gunn, Schaller, and V. L. Johnson, 

D. S. Hall of Renville County headed the Committee on 
Railroads, which had its hands full defeating the Railroad 
Rate Reforms fed to it through two sessions by Senator 
T. E. Cashman, of Owatonna. _ 

The Temperance Committee of nine had among its 
members only one advocate of county option, Senator 
Elwell of Minneapolis. The other eight were Campbell, 
Hinton, C. A. Johnson, Hardy, Alderman, Hall, Laybourn, 
and Donaldson. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 25 


The Committees on Elections, Insurance, Judiciary and 
^Municipal Corporations, the latter headed by Calhoun, 
also had much to do with the unsatisfactory results of the 
session. 

The importance to the corporations of controlling the or¬ 
ganization of both branches cannot be over-stated. When 
in command of the legislative machinery, aided by the 
existing methods of legislation, a compact minority has 
more power over legislation than an unorganized majority. 


26 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER V. 

NEW MEMBERS AND THE SYSTEM. 

If this story serves no other purpose than to gain for new 
members of both branches an understanding of the position 
in which they find themselves and to insure for them sym¬ 
pathy and support instead of censure, when they fail, it will 
not have been written in vain. The corporations and politi¬ 
cians have perfected such a subtle system for the control of 
the newly elected members that, even though their inten¬ 
tions may be of the best, they are too often lost to the peo¬ 
ple beyond recall before they realize which road they have 
taken. 

For the roads fork right at the beginning, and the wrong 
way is made the easy way. And it is not strange that 
so many take it, because it is so easy and its way may not 
be seen at the start. 

The creation of a controlling combination in the last 
legislature was an interesting study. First, there was the 
St. Louis County representatives, always solidly'for the* 
steel trust and whatever the pool might require. Next, 
the brewery-controlled St. Paul delegation, with the ex¬ 
ception of one in the House and one in the Senate, all ar¬ 
rayed with “the system.” Then came the big Hennepin 
County delegation, dominated by Smith, and including such 
political schemers as John G. Lennon, F. E. Nimocks, Hugh 
N. Allen, F. B. Wright, J. F. Calhoun, and others of less 
note, most of them elected with the assistance of the 
public service corporations, and bound to serve those inter¬ 
ests. There were a few notable exceptions, such as Fos- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 27 


seen and Elwell in the Senate, and Campbell, Sawyer, 
Washburn and Kneeland in the house. 

The tri-county delegation, the largest and by far the most 
powerful standing committee in the House, had for its 
chairman John G. Lennon, the irrepressible friend of spe¬ 
cial interests. 

Next, there can be added to the combination the one 
senator and three representatives from Winona—Tawney’s 
home county—making the whole membership from the four 
large counties of the state almost a unit, and constituting 
a formidable nucleus, for the system that controlled the 
Legislature, 

Then include such country senators as Alderman, Camp¬ 
bell, Coller, Gunn, Hall, Hinton, F. E. Putnam, Robinson, 
Schaller, Seward, Stephens, and Sullivan, and such coun¬ 
try representatives as Dalzell, Dorsey, Doyle, Gartside, 
MacKenzie, McGarry, W. A. Nolan, Stuart, Thayer, Wells 
Frank T. White, and Zelch, all men who had previously 
qualified or were naturally patrons and part of “the sys¬ 
tem,” and we are ready to consider the artificial means of 
gaining recruits for the combination from the new mem¬ 
bers. 

The Legislature is divided into “sets,” like society. “The 
system’s” lieutenants are the leaders, and they control the 
social situation. They take the uninitiated by the hand and 
help them up a high mountain, where the alluring valleys 
and fertile fields of social standing stretch out in a pano¬ 
rama of pleasant prospect. Then they go down with them 
into the valleys of “brewery birthday dinners” and wine 
suppers, and the mountain view becomes real—and reac¬ 
tionary. 

Many members begin their first session conscious of a 
lack of “culture” and worried because they are not properly 
equipped to shine socially with the more polished states¬ 
men. Feeling thus, they are naturally surprised and pleased 
out of their independence to find so royal a welcome. 
Nimocks with his perennial boquet, and winning smile and 


28 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


“glad hand,” and Nolan with white waistcoat and diamond 
stud, receive all on a plane of perfect social equality. 

Social good times are made so easy, and so economical, 
too. New members are confidentially advised of an un¬ 
failing supply of theater tickets. They do not know that 
the theaters have been “held up’” for this graft. They 
realize only that it is a mighty fine thing to be able to 
take their constituents to places of amusement, without 
expense to themselves, whenever they happn to be in 
the capital city. Even this subtle method of “control” 
harks back to the “standing at home” question. Just as 
the old manipulators wedge themselves into the good 
graces of the new members by placing before them these 
opportunities, so do the country members make use of 
such means of entertainment to carry favor with their local 
constituents. 

Next, it surprises these new members who unknowingly 
start upon the wrong road to discover how kindly the 
city dailies accept their presence in the Legislature. They 
are “mentioned” in a complimentary way by some one of 
the big papers almost ever day. These notices are invari¬ 
able copied by the local papers, and it all adds its mite to 
give the member importance and standing at home. 

Then comes the master stroke—the all-important con¬ 
trolling issue of local appropriations. I here reproduce a 
portion of a newspaper letter issued soon after the 1907 
session in which 1 touched upon this phase of “the 
system”: 

Amidst a silence that was intense, the Honorable 
John Zelch paused in his speech and glanced scorn¬ 
fully across the chamber: then—“The gentleman 
from Otter Tail has made himself very obnoxious.” 

It was the voice of the combination, speaking its 
protest against the legislative life and influence of 
Elmer E. Adams of Fergus Falls. 

This simple scene was strangely fascinating to 
me. For hours the words rang in my ears. That 
rift in the oratory, through which flashed the sud- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 29 


den storm, seeemed to set in motion a panoramic 
picture. I saw both the accuser and the “obnox¬ 
ious” member as each had labored throughout the 
session. These two typified the two contending 
classes in the law-making body. One stood for 
himself and the special interests. The other had 
struck out boldly abreast of the current; he had op¬ 
posed the plundering policy of the powers that were; 
he had tried to turn the spotlight of publicity upon 
schemes which he was powerless to prevent—he 
had made himself “obnoxious” to the system. 

One ranked as a king in the combination, a man 
of commanding consequence and power. The other 
was unpopular and lacking in influence, save with 
the unorganized faction; he was sent home “empty- 
handed” of legislative honors. This was the price 
of daily loyalty to his constituents and his state, 
the penalty he paid for opposing the combination. 

The opposite course and its sequel is illustrated 
in the following clipping from a Benton County 
newspaper: 

“Hon. Otis F. Doyle, who represented this district 
in the legislature during the last session, was in¬ 
strumental in securing more and larger appropria¬ 
tions than any member who has been sent to St. 
Paul in recent years. Mr. Doyle was able to per¬ 
suade his fellow members to give $5,000 out of the 
road and bridge fund for the bridge at Rice. He is 
responsible, too, for the appropriation of $4,000 to 
be expended at the discretion of the Benton Coun¬ 
ty commissioners during the next two years. And 
in addition to these amounts, Mr. Doyle obtained 
$2,000 for the Elk river bridge, making a total of 
$11,000 this county will receive during the next 
two years.” 

Because Mr. Doyle became a private in the ranks 
of “the combination” the ruling powers permitted 
him to return to his constituents heavily laden with 


30 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


local appropriations. He did the bidding of the 
corporation cabinet, voting with that crowd on cer¬ 
tain tests of combine strength, dodging such bills 
as the tonnage tax and the Rockne stock regulation 
measure, and the combination paid for this sundry 
service in the enactment of his local bills. He was 
made a big man at home by being small and “use¬ 
ful” in St. Paul.” 

It might have been the same and much more 
with Mr. Adams. Had he chosen the easy way 
and become “safe” for the system, he might have 
had his name attached to numerous measures of 
importance. He might have secured large and 
luscious appropriation plums for his city community. 
He might have worked wonders for himself locally, 
had he yielded to the strings that pulled the combi¬ 
nation together. But he preferred to remain patri¬ 
otic and unpopular; to go home “empty-handed,” 
to hear the voice of the combination speaking its 
spite—^“The gentleman from Otter Tail has made 
himself very obnoxious.” 

I specialize the cases of Adams and Doyle be¬ 
cause the “combination” was built largely upon 
threats and trades. The general scheme' gave mem¬ 
bers a choice of being “obnoxious” and going home 
“empty-handed,” or of doing the bidding of the 
cabinet on the big questions affecting the corpora¬ 
tions, and in return receiving a substantial share of 
local appronriations and special laws for their com¬ 
munities. 

The foregoing should suggest the crux of the whole 
matter. Local appropriations is the mess of pottage for 
which many new members barter away their legislative 
independence. They go to St. Paul dominated with a de¬ 
termination to “make good,” which, according to the usual 
interpretation, means to secure such appropriations and 
legislation as their districts desire. They see only the 
commendation of constituents; they neither understand 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 31 


nor measure the price they pay for high standing at home. 

It is a strong statement, yet unquestionably true, that 
not a single item of appropriation made by the legislature 
is ever considered strictly on its own merits. Barter is 
the basis for almost every bit of public money voted 
away by the legislature. The gang ,is in control, and tne 
members have the alternative of becoming one with the 
combihation and obtaining a share for their constituents, 
or of staying out and getting nothing. 

The system doesn’t care particularly about the financial 
needs of any state institution or of any community; its 
great concern is for the predatory pool. But they know 
that there is no means of controlling members and build¬ 
ing up an adequate organization quite so effective as trad¬ 
ing in appropriations. That is why the two chief appro¬ 
priation measures, the omnibus bill and the road and 
bridge bill, the latter referred to in well-merited derision 
as “the pork barrel,” are both in reality little more than a 
giant patchwork of bribery—the money coming from the 
state treasury to buy members a standing at 'home, in re¬ 
turn for which a majority help to carry out the schemes 
of the corporation managers. 

And if members “insurge”—if they take the other fork 
of the road—they are lonely and without influence during 
the session, and have to face hard ingratitude, because of 
a misunderstanding of law-making methods, when they 
return to their constituents without the mess of appropria¬ 
tion pottage. For such the entire journey is different. 
They fall outside the social breastworks. There are no 
free theater tickets, no brewery banquets to cheer them 
on their way. And instead of “standing in” with sub¬ 
sidized reporters, they are mentioned only at such times 
and in such ways as will tend, to belittle and discredit 
them both at home and at the seat of government. 


32 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER VI. 

REFORMING THE RULES. 

The title of this chapter may be misleading. There was 
no reform of the rules—only an attempt toward that end. 
It furnished the first real test of strength in the session- 
long contest between the pool and the people. 

The rules need reforming. I do not believe that it will 
ever be found possible to legislate justly in this state until 
the rules are radically revised. All bills are referred to 
standing committees, which do about as they please with 
them. If the committee is packed with servants of the 
system, as practically all the important committees were 
at the last session, good bills can be smothered or emascu¬ 
lated with almost complete immunity. No public records 
are kept of committee actions, and members feel safe in 
serving selfish interests there in ways that would mean 
their political death if performed out in the open. 

The standing committee evil could be substantially les¬ 
sened: (1) by compelling every committee to keep a com¬ 
plete public record of all its acts; and (2) by requiring 
every standing committee to report all bills back to the 
Senate and House within a stated time after receiving 
them. The first would prevent a lot of legislative iniquity 
by turning on the light, and the second would do away 
with the congestion of business in the closing days of the 
session that is inevitable under the existing system. It is 
in the haste and confusion of the last few days that bad 
bills are railroaded through and important measures neg¬ 
lected. 

When the committee on rules in both branches reported 
their “regulations” for the session, ineffectual attempts 
were made to adopt amendments which would curtail the 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 33 


power of standing committees. In the House on Jan. 7, 
Mr. Haugland offered an amendment requiring committees 
to report bills back within fifteen days after receiving 
them, unless the House should grant an extension of time 
for further consideration. 

John G. Lennon moved to lay this amendment on the 
table, and it was killed in that way by the following vote 
of 60 to 44, those voting “aye” being against the reform. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were; Anderson, 
Austin, Baldwin, Borgen, Brady, Buck, Christensen, Con¬ 
roy, Davis, Dorsey, Dower, Doyle, Emmel, Ferguson, Gart- 
side. Gates, Goodspeed, Grant, Greene, Handlan, Henry, 
Herzberg, Horton, Jorgenson, Kelly, Kling, Lennon, Mac- 
Kenzie, McGarry, McMartin, McNeil, Nagel, Nimocks, 
Nolan, Nye, O’Brien, Perry, Peterson, Phillips, W. H. 
Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rodenberg, Rowe, Sahler, Selb, 
Sikorshi, Spence, Spooner, Stone, Sullivan, Swendsen, 
Thayer, Virtue, Webb, Welter, Wohlhuter, F. B. Wright, 
Zelch, and Mr. Speaker. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Adams, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Burnquist, Campbell, Carley, Carlson, Con¬ 
ley, Davis, Denzer, Duea, Fitzpatrick, Friedman, Haug¬ 
land, Hinds, Holmberg, Holten, C. F. Johnson, J. N. John¬ 
son, J. T. Johnson, Lee, Lende, Lobeck, Mattson, McGrath, 
Melby, Mork, Murphy, H. Nelson, O. B. Nelson, Noble, 
Opsahl, Pfaender, H. A. Putnam, Rosenwald, Rustad, 
Sampson, Saugstad, Stuart, Sulerud, Wallace, Ware, Wash¬ 
burn, and C. J. Wright. 

A somewhat similar attempt was made to curtail the 
power of standing committees in the Senate. On Jan 12, 
Senator Sageng, of Otter Tail County, moved to amend 
Rule 66, to make it read as follows: 

Rule 66. All committees, except Finance Commit¬ 
tee, to which any bill or resolution has been referred, 
shall return the same to the Senate with or without 
its recommendations and report not later than twen¬ 
ty days from the day of reference, unless at the form¬ 
al request of the committee the Senate has granted a 


34 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


definite extension of the time during which the bill 
or resolution may be held for consideration in com¬ 
mittee. 

Whenever any bill or resolution is held in com¬ 
mittee contrary to the provisions of this rule, on the 
demand of the one-third of the total membership 
of the Senate, it may be recalled from the committee 
and placed on general orders of the day. 

This amendment was referred to the Committee on Rules 
of the Senate, and on Jan. 19, without a minority report 
this committee recommended that the Sageng amend¬ 
ment be “indefinitely postponed.” Senator Sageng argued 
for the amendment, and Senator Seward of Lyon County 
spoke' against it. The amendment was first amended by 
striking out the second paragraph, and then “indefinitely 
postponed” by the following vote: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 

Alderman, Anderson, Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Cane- 
storp, Canfield, Carpenter, Clague, Coller, Cooke, Dale, 
Donaldson, Dunn, Durment, Dutoit, French, Glotzbach, 
Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Hall, Hanson, Hardy, Hinton, 
C. A. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Laybourn, Moonan, Naeseth, 
Pauly, Robinson, Schaller, Seward, Smith, Stephens, Sulli¬ 
van, Swanson, Vail, Weis, White, Wilson, Witherstine, 
Works and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: 

Farrington, McGowan, Sundberg, Cashman, A. L. Han¬ 
son, and Sageng. 

The fact that only six senators voted for this most vital 
and necessary reform which would have made equitable 
legislation possible speaks volumes for the completeness 
of the Smith control in the Senate. Possibly some failed 
to realize what the reform meant, but most of them did not 
care to incur the displeasure of those in control. 

And so it happened that these attempts to make both 
House and Senate real deliberative bodies came to naught, 
and the pool continued to rule because it continued to 
make and manipulate the rules. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


35 


CHAPTER VII. 

THE BATTLE FOR A TONNAGE TAX. 

A million dollars is a lot of money. Men will struggle 
desperately where such a sum is involved. That, in a 
word, explains why the fight for a tonnage tax on iron ore 
was by far the biggest battle of the last session. 

The United States Steel Corporation has little interest in 
Minnesota except to get its iron ore out of the state at the 
lowest possible expense in taxes and transportation. Un¬ 
like almost every other industry it does nothing to de¬ 
velop the state. On the contrary it is depleting our great¬ 
est nature resource, leaving less than nothing in return. 
When its mining operations are over in any locality there 
remains only an unsightly and worthless hole in the 
ground. The ore is taken to the manufacturing plants in 
Pittsburg; the money resulting from the mining in Minne¬ 
sota goes to the financial home of this trust in Wall Street. 
The Bjorge bill, recognizing that the steel trust was not 
contributing anything like its share of the tax burden, 
provided that for every ton of ore taken out of the ground 
there should be left in the state treasury from two to five 
cents, according to the quality of the ore. This tonnage 
tax would have meant a million or more each year in 
additional taxes to the state. 

On one side of this contest was arrayed the steel trust, 
which has become the mightiest, most uncompromising 
power in Minnesota politics. Opposed to this great hold¬ 
ing company, with its Wall Street connections, its sub¬ 
sidized newspapers, its city support and its retinue of 
hungry politicians, were only the purely agricultural sec- 


36 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


tions of the state, and even there, in several farming com¬ 
munities, political influence led members to disregard the 
sentiment of their districts and vote against the bill. 

Principals in the Fight. 

H. O. BJORGE, 60TH DISTRICT, BECKER COUN¬ 
TY.—^^The Legislature has never contained a man who 
worked harder, more unselfishly and against greater ob¬ 
stacles than did this member. In 1907 he and R. H. Jef¬ 
ferson of Cottonwood County were joint authors of the 
bill for a tonnage tax, but Mr. Jefferson was punished 
by being defeated at the last election, and Mr. Bjorge 
had to bear the brunt of the battle alone in the last House. 
This he did with rare courage and ability. He produced 
a bill which some of the best attorneys in the state pro¬ 
nounced free from unconstitutionality and eminently fair 
to every interest involved. He fortified himself for the 
terrific fight by almost ceaseless investigation of every 
phase of the question, and during the crisis of the con¬ 
test, when pitted against the brainiest political and legal 
talent that a great trust could command, proved himself 
master of the situation. His speech in advocacy of the 
measure on the day of its passage in the House was easil}" 
the greatest argument made by any member of that body 
during the winter. It contained no abuse of any member 
or of the special interest so many of them served—it was 
simply a justification of the measure on its merits. 

Mr. Bjorge stood squarely for the public interest on 
every other question that came before the session. 

C. A. CONGDON, 51ST DISTRICT, DULUTH—led 
the opposition to the tonnage tax bill. He cannot be crit- 
isized for taking that position for he was himself a wealthy 
mine owner and represented the sentiment of his district. 
He brought to bear upon the situation fine legal ability 
and the prestige of being the House floor leader of the 
steel trust. Mr. Congdon was invariably with the pool 
throughout the session. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 37 


THE DULUTH DELEGATION.—The members of 
both House and Senate from St. Louis County were men 
with a single legislative purpose, which was to defeat the 
tonnage tax. They stood ready at all times, as one man, 
to do anything that would aid in the accomplishment of 
that object. As individuals they were entirely submerged 
in the steel trust. They took practically no part in any 
constructive legislation, their mission being not to enact 
laws, but to defeat a single measure. They were masters 
in the art of legislative “log-rolling,” but they had only 
one thing for which to trade—votes against the tonnage tax. 
They were always ready to do whatever woul'd marshal 
votes to defeat the Bjorge bill, it mattered not how oir 
what. 

These St. Louis County members of both branches need 
no other classification nor characterization. They were 
for the steel trust, and with the pool in every contest, with 
a single exception, the J. N. Johnson anti-watered stock 
measure. This bill came up on its final passage very soon 
after the Bjorge bill passed the House. The steel trust 
representatives voted for this railroad reform in order that 
it might also pass into the Senate. Then they would be 
in a position to say to the railroad ring, the best organized 
and strongest single influence in the upper body: “You 
railroad men help, us defeat the tonnage tax or we will 
help pass this Johnston stock regulation bill.” 

Ordinarily this situation would not iTave been possible, 
but it must be remembered that public opinion is more 
powerful even than the pool. Some of the railroad ring’s 
most dependable members were forced to support the 
tonnage tax in both House and Senate because their dis¬ 
tricts would tolerate no other course. 

The “Duluth Delegation” in the Senate comprised Lay- 
bourn, Pugh and Vail. In the House those from St. 
Louis County were Austin, Borgen, Buck, Congdon, Gra¬ 
ham, and Grant. 


38 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


House Vcrte on Tonnage Tax. 

It is not necessary to review the long fight on this bill 
before the final vote was taken. The steel trust had on 
its side a friendly speaker and a most favorable organiza¬ 
tion of the House machinery. But the people were awake 
and watching, so the issue had to be met squarely, and 
out in the open. The Bjorge bill was voted upon March 
17th and passed, 61 to 57, every member voting except 
John Spence, of Le Sueur, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, Bald¬ 
win, Bendixeii, Bicknell, Bjorge, Campbell, Carey, Carley, 
Carlson, Conley, Davies, Denzer, Dorsey, Duea, Fitz¬ 
patrick, Friedman, Haugland, Herzberg, Holmberg, Hol- 
ten, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Jorgen¬ 
son, Kelly, Lee, Lende, Lobeck, Mattson, McGrath, Mc- 
Martin, McNeil, Melby, Mork, Murphy, Nagel, H. Nelson, 
O. B. Nelson, Noble, Nolan, Opsahl, Peters, Peterson, 
Pfaender, Phillips, H. A. Putnam, Robertson, Rosenwald, 
Rustad, Sampson, Saugstad, Sikorski, Spooner, Sulerud, 
Swendsen, Thayer, Ware, Wells, Wescott, Wohlhuter, and 
C. J. Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Allen, Ander¬ 
son, Austin, Borgen, Brady, Brown, Buck, Burnquist, 
Christensen, Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, Davis, Dower, 
Doyle, Emmel, Ferguson, Gartside, .Gates, Goodspeed, 
Graham, Grant, Greene, Handlan, Henry, Hinds, Horton, 
L. H. Johnson, Kling, Kneeland, Krause, Lennon, Mac- 
Kenzie, McGarry, Nimocks, Nye, O’Brien, Perry, W. H. 
Putnam, Rines, Rodenberg, Rowe, Sahler, Sawyer, Selb, 
Stone, Stuart Sullivan, Virtue, Wallace, Washburn, Webb, 
Welter, White, F. B. Wright, Zelch, and Mr. Speaker. 

Where the Votes Came From. 

A sectional analysis of the votes on the Bjorge bill is 
interesting. Every Hbuse member from the four large 
counties—Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis and Winona—voted 
against the measure except Sikorski of Winona and Camp- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 39 

bell and McNeil of Minneapolis. In the First Congres¬ 
sional District, out of its sixteen representatives only 
Henry, Gartside and Virtue voted “no”; in the second 
only Stuart voted against the bill; in the third Rockne, 
Gates, W. H. Putnam, Welter, Krause, and MacKenzie 
voted in the negative, and Spence did not vote either way; 
in the Fourth all thirteen were opposed to the measure; in 
Hennepin County only Campbell and McNeil voted for 
it; in the Sixth Doyle, Kling, Brown, Dower, Hinds and 
Emmel were opposed to it; in the Seventh only John Dal- 
zell voted against the bill; in the Eighth all were on the 
negative; and in the Ninth every member voted for the 
bill. 


Why the Bill Passed. 

The real reason why the House passed the Bjorge bill 
has already been suggested. The sentiment for such a 
law in most of the rural districts was too strong to be 
ignored. Members did not dare disobey the known wishes 
of their constituents. The position in which several found 
themselves is illustrated in the experience of R. J. Wells, 
of Breckenridge. Two years before he had voted against 
the measure and would probably have done the same at 
this session had he not been forced to support the bill in 
order to get re-elected. In the debate he explained that 
the tonnage tax had been made an issue in his district and 
implied that his affirmative vote was due to that em¬ 
barrassing fact. 

Another factor in the passage of the bill was the tem¬ 
porary disorganization of the combination forces in the 
House. The Bjorge bill was placed on its final passage 
just after the disruption caused by the Nolan street rail¬ 
way bill,—discussed in another chapter. L. H. Johnson 
was one of those frightened into a change of attitude on 
the Nolan bill by the popular uproar against it, and when 
he attempted to lead a stampede against the tonnage tax 
a few of those whom he had deserted in the other fight 
doubtless retaliated by voting for it. 


40 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


Still another factor that favored Bjorge in his battle was 
a little mistake in generalship on the part of the demo¬ 
cratic “kitchen cabinet/’ In the previous campaign the 
state ticket had had a distinct stategic advantage in 
the southern districts in the fact that a Republican House 
had defeated the tonnage tax. They expected that the 
bill would also fail of passage in the House at this session, 
and in order to be in the best possible position to profit 
from the situation as a party, rather encouraged the 
House Democrats to support the measure, which twelve 
of the twenty-one did. But after the bill reached the 
Senate the “kitchen cabinet” worked heroically to kill it 
there and save the executive the responsibility of a veto. 
Had they displayed the same activity in the House it is 
not improbable that the measure would have been de¬ 
feated in that body. 


Bjorge Bill in the Senate. 

Without an aroused public opinion demanding honest 
consideration of the measure—a power before which poli¬ 
ticians become cowardly and responsive—the friends of the 
tonnage tax in the Senate would never have been able to 
force the bill to a vote. The people were watching and 
that alone saved the day. 

H. F. No. 227, after passing the House, was referred to 
Smith’s Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws, where it re¬ 
posed peacefully until Senator Sageng offered the follow¬ 
ing resolution of April 7th, which explains itself: 

Whereas, Public sentiment in the state demands 
that the tonnage tax bill passed by the House of 
Representatives on March 17th, be given full and 
fair consideration by the Senate. 

Whereas, This bill has been in the hands of the 
Senate Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws nearly 
three weeks, and in view of the fact that only a 
few days of the session now remain and that any 
further delay in reporting the bill to the Senate 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 41 


necessarily means that this important measure can¬ 
not be reached in the regular order of business and 
thus fail to be considered by this Senate; therefore, 
be it 

Resolved, That the Senate requests and directs its 
Committee on Taxes and Tax Laws to report H. F. 
No. 227 back to the Senate not later than at the 
opening of the session of this body on Monday, 
April 12, 1909. 

Senator Calhoun temporarily blocked this attempt to 
force the bill into the Senate, and the measure did not 
emerge from that committee until April 14th, when it came 
“without recommendation.” But a minority report, signed 
by Frank E. Putnam, L. O. Thorpe, B. N. Anderson, and 
V. B. Seward, asked that it be made a special order for 
April 16th, and Mr. Clague moved that this minority re¬ 
port be substituted for the majority committee report. 

The meaning of these reports should be plainly under¬ 
stood. Under the provision of the minority report the 
bill was to be placed on its final passage in two days. 
The majority report meant that it would go to the foot 
of general orders, to be passed on by the Senate, sitting 
as a committee of the whole, after which, if favorable ac¬ 
tion were taken at that point, the bill would be placed at 
the foot of the calendar, where the chances w'ere a thou¬ 
sand to one it could not be reached before the session 
ended. 

Another all-important difference in the two reports was 
this: If the majority report had been adopted the bill 
would have gone to “general orders.” This is a legis¬ 
lative proceeding where no rolls are called on votes, and 
without an “aye” and “no” vote to place insincere sup¬ 
porters of the bill on record, the measure would un¬ 
doubtedly have been killed by amendment at this point. 
An amendment of any kind would have defeated it, be¬ 
cause it would have had to repass the House, which could 
hardly have been possible with the influences then at work 
in that body. 


42 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


The Clague motion for the adoption of the minority re¬ 
port carried, 40 to 22, but Lieutenant Governor Eberhart 
declared it lost, ruling that it required a two-thirds vote to 
advance a bill out of its regular order. This bit of Cannon- 
ism would have killed the tonnage tax but for the fact that 
the situation created so much comment that the enemies 
of the bill were frightened into surrendering the advan¬ 
tage, and themselves voted to reconsider and adopt the 
minority report. 

Two democratic senators. Works and Witherstine, 
united in a resolution which provided for the death of the 
tonnage tax by referring the whole question to the Tax 
Commission. Failing in that attempt to defeat the meas¬ 
ure Witherstine finally voted for the bill on its final pass-, 
age. Works was more consistent in his opposition and 
voted “no.” 


The Vote in the Senate. 


After a terrific fight on April 16th, in which thirteen 
separate attempts were made to defeat the measure by 
amendment, it passed the Senate by the following vote of 
38 to 24: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Anderson, 
Bedford, Briggs, Campbell, Canestorp, Canfield, Carpen¬ 
ter, Cashman, Clague, Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Dutoit, 
Farrington, Fosseen, Glotzbach, Gunderson, A. L. Hanson, 
H. E. Hanson, Hinton, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, McColl, 
McGowan, Moonan, Naeseth, Nelson, Peterson, Poehler, 
Putnam,. Sageng, Seward, Sundberg, Thorpe, Weis, White, 
Witherstine, and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Alderman, Cal¬ 
houn, Coller, Dunn, Durment, Elwell, French, Gunn, 
Hackney, Hall, Hardy, V. L. Johnson, Laybourn, Pauly, 
Pugh, Robinson, Schaller, Smith, Stephens, Sullivan, 
Swanson, Vail, Wilson, and Works. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 43 


CHAPTER VIII. 

THE RAILROAD RING IN TWO SESSIONS. 

The railroad managers of the country are past masters 
in politics. They thoroughly understand the great game 
of legislation. No subtle turn or sharp trick was ever 
devised that they have not known and used in their at¬ 
tempts to manipulate government for their own predatory 
purposes. I trust that this installment of the story may 
suggest some of their questionable practices as they have 
been exemplified in the Minnesota Legislature during the 
last two sessions. 

Four bills will be considered here and the history of 
each will reveal a different degree and kind of “railroad 
ring” method in lawmaking: (1) Cashman’s distance tariff; 
(2) the two-cent fare law; (3) J. N. Johnson’s stock regu¬ 
lation measure; and (4) the notorious Rodenberg bill. 


The Distance Tariff Bill. 

Thomas E. Cashman, 8th District, Owatonna, was the 
author of this bill and fought heroically for its passage in 
the last two sessions. But the railroad organization was 
too effectively entrenched in the Senate and too success¬ 
ful in subterfuge for him to do more than force the meas¬ 
ure to a final vote. Even that was a remarkable achieve¬ 
ment, considering the unequal conditions of the contest. 

Briefly stated, his Distance Tariff Bill provided that 
freight rates should be on an equal basis throughout the 
state, that the small shipper would not have to pay any 


44 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


more per ton per mile than the large shipper, regardless 
of whether the shipper might live in a small town or large 
center. Such a law would place a producer and shipper 
in a small town, on an equal basis with a man handling a 
like commodity in a large center. The mileage to control 
the rates in all cases. The evil that he was fighting and 
which his bill aimed to correct was discrimination be¬ 
tween communities. This bill, S. F. No. 37, was practical¬ 
ly a copy of the Iowa statute on the same subject. Iowa 
has had such a distance tariff law for more than twent}'’ 
years and its wholesome effect is seen in the even distri¬ 
bution of the people and industries of that state. Iowa 
has no very large cities, but is full of small manufacturing 
and distributing centers. On the other hand, Minnesota 
has been the victim of the grossest discrimination in rates 
for many years. The concentration of its population and in¬ 
dustries in two large commercial centers—St. Paul and 
Minneapolis being one, and Duluth the other—must be 
attributed in large measure to this kind of discrimination. 

Cashman came to the Senate in 1907 with a clear con¬ 
ception of the causes and economic results of this Minne¬ 
sota condition. He knew that great railroad minds recog¬ 
nized two freight rate theories, the one having to do with 
many small centers and short hauls, which meant the 
minimum of freight receipts for the transportation com¬ 
panies; the other dealing with a few big centers, long 
hauls and the maximum of business for the railroads— 
which was the Minnesota condition. 

Because our state legislature had never had a member 
with so clear a vision and so dogged a determination to 
remedy the inequitable situation, the railroads of Minne¬ 
sota had gone on unmolested in their piratical policy of 
discriminative rates, which built up big centers at the 
expense of all other sections of the state. Cashman’s own 
section, the southern part of the state, was hampered be¬ 
yond reason by this kind of discrimination. No town could 
grow into a manufacturing and distributing center because 
of higher freight rates than Twin City competitors had 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 45 

V 

to pay. This, of course, retarded the development of the 
surrounding country as well as dwarfed the towns and 
little cities. 

The “railroad ring” has usually been successful in de¬ 
feating legislative attempts at regulation, whenever regula¬ 
tion threatened to affect their revenues, but Cashman gave 
them a royal battle with his distance tariff bill. He had 
justice on his side and was armed with unanswerable facts 
and figures; more than that, he was entitled to the support 
of every country member because no country district was 
free from the abuses his measure would have corrected. 
The railroad organization in the Senate, however, was 
equal to the task. 

First in the 1907 session, Cashman had to fight a packed 
Railroad Committee, headed by D. S. Hall of Renville. 
After a struggle that would have disheartened a less de¬ 
termined man, he finally succeeded in outwitting the rail¬ 
road allies in that committee and got his bill before the 
Senate. 

Then the politicians became alarmed at the situation. 
They knew that the people were beginning to appreciate 
the importance of the issue and that, it was likely to be 
a choice between “cringing to the power of the Great 
Northern” or facing an aroused and enraged constituency. 
So they resorted to subterfuge. Something just as good 
(as the friends of the bill put it) was provided in the Com¬ 
modity Rate law of 1907 which was hurriedly framed up 
and passed under suspension of the rules in the House, 
the same evening it was introduced, which, by the way, 
was a few hours after the Distance Tariff Bill was killed. 
Events were so manipulated that the same city papers that 
told of the defeat of the distance tariff bill announced 
the passage of the substitute, which would never have been 
considered at all if railroad members had dared to vote 
against the Cashman bill without the justification of some¬ 
thing “just as good.” 

The commodity rate law was a subterfuge. It never 
became effective and possibly never will, being still en- 


46 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


gaged in a snail-like course through the courts, with the 
final result in doubt. I believe that the real reason why 
the substitute was adopted was because its chief support¬ 
ers were close to railroad attorneys and knew that it would 
not survive judicial scrutiny, whereas the Cashman bill 
had already been proved constitutional as an Iowa statute. 

Frank Clague, 19th District, Lamberton—was one of the 
leaders who provided the commodity rate law of 1907 as 
a substitute for the Cashman bill, and in the 1909 session 
he openly headed the opposition to the distance tariff. In 
the debate on the question he condemned S. F. No. 37 as 
impracticable and also justified his position against it by 
contending that any legislation on the subject would 
complicate pending litigation on the commodity rate law. 
Clague voted for the tonnage tax but proved himself un¬ 
progressive by standing for the repeal of the primary, 
against its extension to the state officers and the direct 
election of United States senators. 


The Vote on the Cashman Bill. 

This measure was defeated for a second time in the 
Senate on March 25th, 1909, by the following vote: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Ahmann, Bed¬ 
ford, Canestorp, Canfield, Cashman, Coller, Farrington, 
Glotzbach, Gunderson, A. L. Hanson, C. A. Johnson, 
Moonan, Naeseth, Robinson, Sageng, Schaller, Seward, 
Sundberg, Weis, White, Witherstine, Works and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Alderman, 
Anderson, Briggs, Calhoun, Clague, Dale, Dunn, Durment, 
Dutoit, V. L. Johnson, Elwell, Fosseen, French, Gunn, 
Hackney, Hall, H. E. Hanson, Hardy, Hinton, Laybourn, 
McColl, Peterson, Pugh, Smith, Stephens, Swanson, 
Thorpe and Wilson. 


An Obituary on the Bill. 

The following newspaper comment was written after the 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 47 

defeat of the measure in the 1907 session: 

“DIED—On Tuesday, April 9th, 1907, in the 
Senate, the Cashman Distance Tariff Bill. Inter¬ 
ment from the Smith morgue in the legislative ceme¬ 
tery for anti-corporation children. 

“It is with the deepest regret that we are called 
upon to chronicle the untimely death of the Cash- 
man distance tariff bill. This industrial relief infant 
was born January 9th, 1907, and early gave promise 
of the usual allotment of life and usefulness. But 
' the dread contagion, corporationitis, which has re¬ 
sulted in the sudden demise of so many meritorious 
measures, had marked this bill for mortality, and 
although its parent and friends worked day and 
night to avert the final summons, all their efforts 
were in vain. Later in the development of the 
disease the trouble was complicated by an attack of 
moneyitis, and the measure, worn and wasted by 
the weary weeks of terrible struggle with the first 
form of infection, could only await the inevitable dis¬ 
solution. 

. “It cannot be said that the bill died a natural 
death—it had doctors, the best that money could 
procure. But these practitioners were all from the 
combine school of surgery, and labored in perfect 
harmony with the coroner and the sexton. 

“The remains were taken to the overworked Smith 
morgue and later interred in the large legislative 
cemetery for anti-corporation children, beside the 
numerous other victims of the same dread disease. 
Besides the sorrowing parent, a score of senators 
assisted in the obsequies, but this little assembly of 
sympathizers did not constitute all the mourners. 
From every section of the state thousands are in 
darkest gloom, for upon the operation of this Cash- 
man bill were the masses of Minnesota depending 
for relief from railroad arrogance and despotism.” 

But the people of Minnesota will not forget the relief 


48 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


offered had this Bill become a law and no doubt will see 
to it that the men chosen to represent their respective 
districts in 1910 will be pledged to support this or a simi¬ 
lar measure at the coming Session of the Minnesota Legis¬ 
lature. 


♦ « 


Jockeying With Two-Ccnt Fare. 

My only object in making any reference to the two-cent 
fare law of the 1907 session is to suggest one of the many 
ways in which legislators may serve the corporations, and 
still appear loyal to their constituents. The incident also 
serves to emphasize the importance of having the legis¬ 
lative machinery in the hands of friends of the people. 

It will be remembered that several two-cent fare bills 
were introduced in the House at the beginning of that 
session. All were referred to the Committee on Railroads 
where they were held until many members became im¬ 
patient at the unnecessary delay. When this impatience 
had attained a state acute enough for their purposes, the 
politicians carried out one of the smoothest schemes ever 
attempted in any law-making body. 

Frank T. White, of Elk River, was the first actor in the 
play. He arose one morning and attacked the Railroad 
Committee, criticizing it for failure to report back a two- 
cent fare bill, and moved that all two-cent fare bills be 
recalled from that committee and referred to a special 
committee for speedy action. After an acrimonious con¬ 
troversy over the motion, W. I. Nolan of Minneapolis, 
offered a substitute motion that the Railroad Committee 
be instructed to report back one of these bills within 
five days, which was adopted. 

That same afternoon Chairman Spooner called his Rail¬ 
road Committee together and all the two-cent fare bills 
were referred to a sub-committee consisting of Burdette 
Thayer, R. J. Wells, Dr. Dorsey, John Zelch and Webster, 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 49 


who were instructed to select the best bill or make a 
redraft for the whole committee. This was done with 
such surprising haste as to suggest the possibility that 
some outside expert may have lent assistance to the task. 
The joker in the bill resulting from the labors of these 
five would also tend to indicate that it may have emanated 
from some railroad office. 

Just a few minutes before a morning sesion of the House 
the Railroad Committee assembled to receive the report 
from this sub-committee. With almost no consideration of 
the new bill, the committee voted to present it to the 
House with the recommendation that it “do pass.” 

Then occurred another subtly planned step in the pro¬ 
ceeding. Thayer moved, after the Railroad- Committee 
bill had been received by the House, that it be made a 
special order for the following Tuesday, which was the 
day the Senate had decided to act upon a similar measure. 
This brought about debate in which it was suggested that 
the House take up the bill at an earlier date and thus se¬ 
cure the honor of having passed a two-cent fare bill a 
head of the Senate. When the discussion had reached the 
psychological point Wells took the floor and plausibly 
explained that both political parties, had promised the 
people two-cent fare; that he had come to St. Paul pre¬ 
pared to vote for such a bill, and that he was ready to 
vote for it then and there; whereupon he moved that the 
rules be suspended and the bill placed upon its final 
passage, all of which was done in the midst of a carefully 
pre-arranged confusion which made it impossible for any¬ 
one to give consideration to the reading of the measure. 

The bill voted upon that morning and carried almost 
unanimously, would not have given the people two-cent 
fare. It contained a subtle provision which made it in¬ 
cumbent on the state to test its validity in the courts be¬ 
fore it could be enforced, if the railroads chose to attack it. 
Years of litigation would have resulted, with the burden of 
proof upon the state rather than the railroads. 

T believe ’that these manipulators had planned a stam- 


50 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


pede of the Senate in the same way. This was Thursday 
and the Senate had taken an adjournment until Monday 
at 8:00 o’clock. Many country members would not have 
returned for that short evening session and in all probabil¬ 
ity the “railroad ring” would have had enough of its mem¬ 
bers on hand to rush the House bill through under sus¬ 
pension of the rules if its vicious character had not been 
discovered. 

I was in the House chamber that morning but was un¬ 
able to detect anything wrong with the bill. The excite¬ 
ment during its reading prevented the real character of 
the bill from being grasped. Yet I had a feeling that 
something was wrong. This was strengthened when I 
noticed the attitude of a member, the protege of one 
of the leading manipulators of the House. The face of this 
individual was a sort of barometer; the smile or frown 
which he wore invariably told whether things were run¬ 
ning smoothly for the interests he served. On this occa¬ 
sion his demeanor indicated abundant happiness. I was 
not surprised, upon consulting with some insurgents to 
whom I imparted my fears, to find that they too were ap¬ 
prehensive. Careful examination of the bill disclosed the 
joker. Insurgents in the Senate were put on guard. That 
ended the bill, for after its real character became known its 
sponsors dared not push it, and so let it die. 

* * * 

The J. N. Johnson Stock Regulation Bill. 

The people of Minnesota are paying freight rate taxes on 
millions of dollars worth of water in railroad stocks and 
bonds, J. N. Johnson of Canby introduced and champion¬ 
ed a bill aimed at this evil. It gave the Railroad and 
Warehouse Commission supervision over the issuance of 
stocks and bonds by railroad companies. It passed the 
House, partly because of reasons suggested in the chapter 
dealing with the tonnage tax bill, but was smothered in 
the Senate Committee on Railroads. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 51 


All of the St. Louis County delegation voted for H. F. 
No. 490 and it is urged by supporters of the tonnage tax 
that the steel trust influence assisted in passing this meas¬ 
ure through the House for the reason that the enemies of 
the tonnage tax bill wanted to use this anti-railroad bill 
in the Senate as a club to line up the railroad ring against 
the Bjorge bill. For an exactly opposite reason Mr. 
Bjorge, author of the tonnage tax measure, and possibly 
others, voted against this Johnson bill. 

This bill, H. F. No. 490, passed the House March 26th, 
by the following vote: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Austin, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Borgen, Brown, Buck, Burnquist, Camp¬ 
bell, Carley, Carlson, Congdon, Conley, Davies, Dorsey, 
Doyle, Duea, Ferguson, Friedman, Gartside, Gates, Gra¬ 
ham, Grant, Haugland, Henry, Hinds, Holmberg, Horton, 
C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, Kling, Kneeland, Lee, 
Lende, Lobeck, McGarry, Melby, Murphy, Nagel, H. Nel¬ 
son, O. B. Nelson, Noble, Nye, Opsahl, Perry, Peterson, 
H. A. Putnam, W. H. Putnam, Rines, Rodenberg, Rosen- 
wald, Rustad, Sampson, Spooner, Stuart, Sulerud, Swend- 
sen, Wallace, Ware, Washburn, Webb, Welter, White, and 
Mr. Speaker. 

Those who voted in th'e negative were: Allen, Anderson, 
Baldwin, Bjorge, Brady, Conroy, Dalzell, Davis, Denzer, 
Dower, Emmel, Goodspeed, Greene, Handlan, Herzberg, 
Jorgenson, Kelly, Krause, Lennon, MacKenzie, Mattson, 
McGrath, McMartin, McNeil, Mork, Nimocks, Nolan, 
O’Brien, Peters, Pfaender, Phillips, Robertson, Rowe, 
Saugstad, Sawyer, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, Sullivan, Virtue, 
Wells, Westcott, Wohlhuter, and C. J. Wright. 

* * ♦ 

The Rodenberg Bill. 

Since the story of how this monstrous woodchuck 
stealthily slipped through the legisla'ture of 1907 is told in 
a newspaper article published after the close of that ses- 


52 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


sion, I here reproduce a portion of that article: 

“One afternoon in March, 1907, as I was strolling down 
Broadway in the capital city, pondering upon the propo¬ 
sition that, even though the railroads should prove their 
power to prevent the passage of large reforms like the 
Rockne bill and the distance tariff, they certainly could 
not hope to secure the enactment of any law that would 
render conditions more favorable to them than at the 
beginning of the session, I chanced to meet an oddly 
proportioned pair. They were Representative Rodenberg, 
a St. Paul law-giver, and Tony Manley, the railroads’ 
legislative errand boy. The two were headed for the 
Great Northern offices. 

There was nothing especially significant in this incident 
—at that time—nor did it occasion any surprise, or even 
the slightest show of interest when a few days later, on 
the 25th of March, Mr. Rodenberg introduced House File 
No. 938. 

This bill was neglected from the start. No one ap¬ 
peared to pay any attention to it. But that was in accord¬ 
ance with the program. It was not intended that anyone— 
except the inner circle fellows—should know about the pur¬ 
poses and provisions of the measure. Honest, intelligent 
inspection would have proved fatal. So there was no 
heralding of trumpets, no explanations from the corpora¬ 
tion press, when H. F. No. 938 started its course through 
the law-making mill. 

“I was present at the time it took its quiet flight through 
both branches, but was then as profoundly ignorant of 
its pernicious purposes as were the many sincere reformers 
who voted for the measure. Probably no bad bill ever 
passed any law-making body more stealthily and at the 
same time more easily. As was once said of a similar 
attempt at crooked legislation, the railroads put “gum 
shoes on the bill, laid their fingers on their lips and held 
their breath.’’ 

Another interesting thing to study in connection with 
the very instructive history of this measure is the legisla- 


Fhe Minnesota Legislature of 1909 53 


live standing of the man who introduced the bill. Public¬ 
ity was not in the least desired by those behind the move. 
.Attention was what they did not want. And in accord¬ 
ance with this desire that none should become so curious 
as to want to take a peep beneath the mask, a rather 
obscure and inoffensive member fathered the woodchuck. 
If any one of certain members whom I might mention had 
introduced H. F. No. 938 insurgents like Adams and Rock- 
ne would have been upon the bill in a minute, making a 
microscopic investigation of its intentions. But the real 
reformers were all so intently engaged with the “cabinet” 
and what the cabinet had already set in motion, that they 
were completely fooled and paid no attention to the ob¬ 
scure introducer and his monstrous woodchuck, which be¬ 
stows upon the railroads unprecedented powers and polit¬ 
ical privileges. 

When introduced in the House, March 25th, by Repre¬ 
sentative Rodenberg of St. Paul, the title of this bill was 
so constructed as to convey no hint of its pernicious pro¬ 
visions. It was merely “An act to amend Section 2895 of 
the Revised Laws, 1905.” The bill was referred to the 
Railroad Committee and on April 4th it was reported 
back, with the title amended by the addition of the words, 
“Relating to the purchase, lease or control of one railroad 
by another,” and the recommendation that it “do pass.” 
I believe that this bill was of such vital interest to the rail¬ 
roads and so much depended upon its real purposes con¬ 
tinuing undiscovered that they did not dare to protest in 
the Railroad Committee when a member suggested that 
amendment to the title. But no one appeared to notice, 
and it really did not matter, for when the bill was placed 
on its final passage the tell-tale title was not as the Rail¬ 
road Committee had inadvertently amended it, but as it 
was first introduced, simply, “An act to amend Section 
2,895 of the Revised Laws, 1905.” Either the chief clerk 
or the speaker had, criminally or carelessly, printed the 
bill in the records minus the amendiiient. As the law now 
appears on the statutes, the words, “Relating to the pur- 


V 


54 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 

chase, lease or control of one railroad by another,” appear 
in the title, so one must conclude that they were omitted 
from certain House records for no other purpose than to 
aid in the stealthy passage of the measure through the 
Legislature. 

Tuesday, April 23d, was the last day for the paTssage 
of bills. On the afternoon of that last day the Rodenberg 
bill was placed on its final passage in the House. It was 
a most opportune time to decide its destiny. Up to‘this 
time its real character was undiscovered. The House was 
then swamped with business which had to be done before 
midnight or not at all. Almost every member had some 
measure in which he w^as vitally interested, and for any¬ 
one to have stopped the legislative mill long enough for 
a critical analysis of any bill at that time might have 
proved fatal to his own. At any rate, H. F. No. 938 
slipped through without difficulty. It passed the House 
by a vote of 81 to 6, Messrs. Adams, Bendixen, Knutson, 
Mork, Noble and Schrooten voting in the negative. 

The bill was then hurried over to the Senate where it 
narrowly escaped a closer scrutiny. But the warning of 
Senators Sageng and Moonan went unheeded and it passed 
that body, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 34 
to 13. The day following the bill was signed by Governor 
Johnson and became a law of the land. 

What first aroused my suspicions of crookedness was 
the presence and activity of all the big railroad lobbyists. 
It was the last day of the session, remember, and all the 
important railroad bills had been disposed of, excepting 
the Senator Johnston live stock bill, and the assassina¬ 
tion of that had been arranged for. Yet all the large lobby 
luminaries were in the capitol and sweating blood in their 
anxiety about something. They not only captured the cor¬ 
ridors, but were seen on the floor of both House and Sen¬ 
ate. When H. F. No. 938 came up in the upper branch 
that last evening, Messrs. Root, Wilkinson, Beggs and 
others of their ilk were actually seated in the Senate, while 
Tony Manley, the ex-G. N. conductor v;ho “shadowed” 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 55 


the session for the railroads, hung about the door in instant 
readiness to perform any errand-boy duty that might arise, 
should the mask be torn from the bill. But there was 
only a little flurry, and when their victory was assured 
these exceedingly clever and successful manipulators dis¬ 
persed, each clothed in expansive smiles of satisfaction. 
Their glee was justifiable for, aided by a select few and 
without the knowledge of the rest, they had “pulled ofif” 
what was probably the smoothest piece of legislation ever 
attempted in this state. 


' The Bill Itself. 

Now study this statute carefully and then you will be in 
a position to appreciate what it may accomplish: 

CHAPTER 395—H. F. NO. 938. 

An ACT to amend section 2895 of the Revised Laws, 
1905, relating to the purchase, lease or control of one 
railroad by another. 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minne¬ 
sota : 

Section 1. Section 2895 of the Revised Laws, 1905, is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 

“Section 2895. Any domestic or foreign railroad cor¬ 
poration may LEASE,'PURCHASE, OR IN ANY OTH¬ 
ER WAY BECOME THE OWNER OF, OR MAY 
CONTROL OR HOLD THE STOCK OF ANY OTHER 
RAILROAD COMPANY, WHENEVER THEIR RE¬ 
SPECTIVE ROADS CAN BE LAWFULLY CON¬ 
NECTED AND OPERATED TOGETHER, SO AS TO 
CONSTITUTE ONE CONTINUOUS LINE, WITH OR 
WITHOUT BRANCHES. Whenever such lease or pur¬ 
chase shall be made by a foreign corporation it shall not 
be effectual for any purpose until such corporation shall 
have first complied with all the laws of this state per¬ 
taining to such corporation, when it shall have the same 
rights, powers, privileges, and be subject to the same 
duties, obligations and liabilities in respect to the railroad 


56 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


so leased or purchased, as pertained to such road. The 
corporation so leasing or purchasing shall be subject to 
any law of this state now in force or hereafter enacted 
relating to the taxation of the properties so leased or pur¬ 
chased. But no railroad corporation shall consolidate with, 
lease or purchase, or in any way become the owner or have 
the control of any other railroad corporation, or any of 
the stock or franchises thereof, which owns or controls a 
railroad parallel to and competing with the railroad owned 
or controlled by such leasing or purchasing corporation; 
nor shall any railroad corporation purchase or in any way 
become the owner of any property owned and operated 
by any other railroad corporation as a part of a railroad 
which is parallel and competing to and with the railroad 
of such purchasing company; and the question whether any 
of such railroads are parallel or competing lines shall, at 
the election of the party complaining, be decided by a jury 
as in civil cases. Any railroad corporation which shall 
consolidate with, lease or purchase, or in any other way 
become the owner or acquire the control of any other rail¬ 
road corporation, or any of the stock or franchises thereof, 
which owns or controls a railroad parallel and competing 
with the railroad owned or controlled by such leasing or 
purchasing railroad corporation, shall be guilty of a misde¬ 
meanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished 
by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than 
twenty thousand dollars; and any officer of such leasing or 
purchasing company who shall aid, abet or participate in 
any violation of this section shall be guilty of a misde¬ 
meanor. 

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from 
and after its passage. 

Approved April 24, 1907. 

The Law in Operation. 

This law legalizes “Alton deals” in the north star state. 
It gives the sanction of the statute to the “Harrimanizing” 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 57 

of railroad values. When President Roosevelt and several 
state legislatures were just beginning to reach and attempt 
to punish the Harriman-Stickney sort of offenders, the 
law-makers of Minnesota, unwittingly, I believe, granted 
complete immunity to the worst class of criminals of the 
age, the fiends of finance who make millions from the man¬ 
ipulation of nothing and then compel the public to make 
productive of dividends all the vast irrigated areas in their 
stocks and bonds. The Minnesota legislature not only tied 
the hands of those who would regulate the Harriman brand 
of outrage by killing the Rockne bill, but it took a long 
step backward in the fight for control by the passage of 
H. F. No. 938. 

This statute practically repeals the anti-merger statute 
in this state, which was intended to secure to the people 
the safeguard of competition. 

When this bill bobbed up in the House that last day, 
when that august body was in the midst of a brain-storm 
of hilarity—such lapses of intelligence and decorum usual¬ 
ly occur during some hour of every “last day” of a IMin- 
nesota legislature—one member stopped throwing paper 
long enough to inquire why the railroads wanted it passed, 
and then resumed his contribution to the confusion when 
Representative Lennon plausibly explained that one road 
merely desired to purchase an unimportant piece of termin¬ 
al property belonging to another road, which could not be 
<lone under the old anti-merger act. 

If the House had not engaged in that fierce sham battle 
of paper pellets, that would have been a psychic moment 
for some reformer to inquire why such a simple motive as 
the transfer of a little terminal property should make 
necessary all the studied phraseology that the bill contain¬ 
ed concerning stocks, continuous lines, branches, and so 
forth. It would also have been the proper time to ask 
if a law which would permit one railroad to buy the ter¬ 
minal of another, would not under the same statute be¬ 
stow the authority to purchase the entire system of the 
other road. But it all happened at an opportune time and 


58 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


neither these nor any other pertinent queries were pro¬ 
pounded. 

Who drew H. F. No. 938 and arranged for its introduc¬ 
tion? I would tell if I knew. But I feel safe in saying 
that the bill was drafted by some railroad man higher in 
efficiency than a section boss. Two attempts were made to 
get a similar measure through the Indiana legislature, and 
Gilson Gardner, in Collier’s Weekly, asserted that the 
Indiana bill was drawn in the office of Francis Lynde Stet¬ 
son, general counsel for J. Pierpont Morgan. Even though 
Mr. Hill and Mr. Morgan are known to be closely associ¬ 
ated, commercially, this Indiana incident may not suggest 
any solution of the mystery concerning the real sireship 
of H. F. No. 938. 

Coming as it did, in the very face of the wave of senti¬ 
ment for reform that was sweeping the state, H. F. No. 
938 was a marvelous victory for the railroads. But more 
marvelous than anything that the bill is or can accomplish 
is the fact that such a law can be enacted without the 
knowledge of the Legislature itself. When you consider 
that nearly every reformer in the House and a large share 
of those in the Senate voted for the passage of a bill that 
might eventually invalidate almost all the laws that they 
had passed relating to railroads, you will agree that it is 
not to be wondered at that the public has not as yet even 
heard of H. F. No. 938.” 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 59 


iTi>7/ 

■ ■ • ■ : . . . ) '' V ;; 

-'•U M 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE SALOONS AND THE LEGISLATURE.. 

The Minnesota Liquor Dealers’ Association is a wide¬ 
awake and powerful organization in politics. No other' 
special interest with legislative axes to grind was so active 
and successful. It did things systematically and thorough¬ 
ly, opening up strong and sticking to the task until the 
session was over. 

The reform forces might learn valuable lessons from the 
methods of the liquor forces in legislation. They started 
in a business like way by making a complete estimate of 
the situation in every district before the primaries. Where 
saloon candidates were not in the field, men who would 
stand by their program from start to finish were brought 
into the contests. Then they aided actively in the election- 
of their candidates. 

John F. Selb, himself a House Member from St. Paul, 
was one of those in charge of this pre-election work.. 
Prominent among his'^field assistants was John T. Jones, 
of Minneapolis, for several sessions reading clerk of the 
House, and especially well fitted for the task by his knowl¬ 
edge of legislative affairs and acquaintance with public men 
in every district. Mr. Jones fully earned the substantial 
recompence he received of reappointment as reading clerk, 
and he continued to serve those interests during the ses¬ 
sion by lobbying for their bills and against such vital re¬ 
form measures as the Initiative and Referendum. 

The next step of the saloon forces was to make sure of 
things in the Speakership fight. With the same Lieuten-f 
ant Govenor as at the previous session, they had nothing 


60 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


to fear from the organization of the Senate. Thus it hap¬ 
pened that the “temperance'' committees of both branches 
were safe and satisfactory. Having been successful in 
a majority of the election contests, it now only remained 
for them to go ahead with their legislative program. 


Killing County Option. 

The first concern of the brewers and whiskey dealers 
was to defeat a county option law. Such a statute would 
have given the citizens of each county the right to vote 
for or against saloons in their county. 

No one expected that a county option bill would pass. 
The results of the legislative elections precluded the pos¬ 
sibility of that; but the arbitrary action of the House in 
shutting off all debate on the bill, thus preventing the dis¬ 
cussion that a measure of such importance merited, and 
likewise preventing the opportunity of making the bill 
more satisfactory by amendment, was such a flagrant in¬ 
justice as to inspire general disgust. 

In all higher deliberative bodies, “moving the previous 
question” is considered high-handed and unstatesmanlike, 
and is never resorted to except in cases where some ex¬ 
traordinary necessity seems to justify its use. But the 
ethics of the situation evidently carried no weight with 
the petty politicians who made use of this cowardly parlia¬ 
mentary device to serve their brewery friends. At the 
same time, by shutting off all debate, they saved them¬ 
selves from the necessity of defending their position. 

The county option bill voted upon was H. F. No. 215, 
introduced by !^Ir. Ware of Northfield. The House Com¬ 
mittee on Temperance considered it, the whole com¬ 
mittee membership of fifteen being present. Ten of 
these, MacKenzie, Henry, Lennon, Goodspeed, McGarry, 
Rowe, Brady, Baldwin, Kling and Hinds, voted to kill the 
bill by “indefinite postponement.” The other five mem¬ 
bers of the committee, Saugstad, Melby, Rustad, ]\Iattson, 
and Swendsen, voted in favor of the passage of the bill. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 61 


and presented a minority report to the House with that 
recommendation. The fight came on February 4, upon the 
question of the adoption of the reports from the Temper¬ 
ance Committee. 


The Vote on “the Previous Question.” 

Chairman MacKenzie, of the Temperance Committee, 
moved that the majority report for “indefinite postpone¬ 
ment” be adopted. Mr. Saugstad made a substitute mo¬ 
tion that the minority report be adopted. At this point 
Mr. Wells of Breckenridge moved “the previous ques¬ 
tion,” which was not debatable under the rules, and which 
when carried shut off all discussion on the main question. 

The vote on Mr. Wells’ motion for “the previous ques¬ 
tion” was as follows; 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Allen, Ander¬ 
son, Austin, Baldwin, Brady, Brown, Buck, Conroy, Dal- 
zell, Dorsey, Dower, Doyle, Duea, Emmel, Fitzpatrick, 
Friedman, Gartside, Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, 
Handlan, Borgen, Herzberg, Hinds, L. H. Johnson. Jor¬ 
genson, Kelly, Kling, Krause, Lende, Lennon, McGarry, 
McNeil, Mork, Murphy, Nagel, Nelson, Nimocks, Nolan, 
Nye, O’Brien, Peters, Peterson, Cary, Carley, Christensen, 
Congdon, Pfaender, Phillips, Rodenberg, Rowe, Sahler, 
Selb, Sikorski, Spence, Stone, Stuart, Sullivan, Virtue, 
Wells, Welter, Wescott, Wohlhuter, F. B. Wright and 
Zelch. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Adams, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Bjorge, Burnquist, Campbell, Carlson, 
Conley, Davies, Davis, Denzer, Ferguson, Gates, Haugland, 
Henry, Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Lee, Lobeck, MacKenzie, Mattson, 
McGrath, McMartin, Melby, O. B. Nelson, Noble, Opsahl, 
Perry, H. A. Putnam, W. H. Putnam, Rines, Robertson, 
Rosenwald, Rustad, Sampson, Saugstad, Sawyer, Spooner, 
Sulerud, Swendson, Thayer, Wallace, Ware, Washburn, 
White, C. J. Wright, and Mr. Speaker. 


62 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


The Test on County Option. 

Mr. Wells’ motion having carried, the following vote 
was then taken on the Saugstad motion for the adoption 
of the minority report, those voting in the affirmative be¬ 
ing for the bill: 

Those who voted in the affirmative ..were: Adams, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Bjorge, Burnquist, Campbell, Carlson, 
Conley, Davies, Davis, Ferguson, Gates, Haugland, Holm- 
berg, Holten, Horton, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, J. T. 
Johnson, Lee, Lobeck, Mattson, McGrath, McMartin, Mel- 
by, Nagel, O. B. Nelson, Noble, Opsahl, H. A. Putnam, 
W. H. Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rosenwald, Rustad, 
Sampson, Saugstad, Sawyer, Spooner, Sulerud, Swendsen, 
Wallace, Ware and C. J. Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Allen, Ander¬ 
son, Austin, Borgen, Baldwin, Brady, Brown, Buck, Cary, 
Carley, Christensen, Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, Denzer, 
Dorsey, Dower, Doyle, Duea, Emmel, Fitzpatrick, Freid- 
man, Gartside, Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, Hand- 
lan, Henry, Herzberg, Hinds, L. H. Johnson, Jorgenson, 
Kelly, Kling, Krause, Lende, Lennon, MacKenzie, McGar- 
ry, McNeil, Mork, Murphy, H. Nelson, Nimocks, Nolan, 
Nye, O’Brien, Perry, Peters, Peterson, Pfaender, Phillips, 
Rodenberg, Rowe, Sahler, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, Stone, 
Stuart, Sullivan, Thayer, Virtue, Washburn, Wells, Wel¬ 
ter, Wescott, White, Wohlhuter, F. B. Wright, Zelch and 
Mr. Speaker. 

The majority report, killing the bill by “indefinite post¬ 
ponement,” was then adopted by an “aye” and “no” vote. 

The early action in the House in killing the county 
option bill enabled the Senate to avoid going on record 
on that question at the last session. 

* * * 

A Brewery Bill. 

While the saloon forces were chiefly concerned in defeat- 


' The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 63 


ing temperance measures, in one instance they took ad¬ 
vantage of their control of the situation to pass a pro- 
saloon measure. This was accomplished easily, because 
the bill was masked as “a concession to the temperance 
people.” 

The measure to which I refer was introduced in the Sen¬ 
ate by S. F. Alderman of Brainard, and in the House by 
Frank T, White of Elk River, 

Mr. Alderman’s bill, S. F. No. 149, was the one which 
passed. This law limits the number of new saloons that 
can be licensed in a village or city to one for each five 
hundred of population, but does not disturb the legal 
status of the saloons having licenses at the time it was 
enacted. Many members who were stoutly opposed to the 
liquor program voted for it, in the belief that it was a re¬ 
form measure, not seeing through the mask it wore. In 
reality this was a subtle scheme to give the big breweries a 
monopoly of the business. 

There is said to be a “gentlemen’s agreement” among the 
large breweries operating in the state. Each is to be 
supreme and free from competition in certain communities. 
The Alderman law makes that arrangement possible. Be¬ 
fore the statute was changed any independent saloon keep¬ 
er might start in business at almost any time or place. 
Now, with the number of licenses limited to a definite 
number, it is more easy for the big brewers to secure and 
keep control of the saloon situation in any district. The 
loss that they will suffer in a few sections through a de¬ 
crease in number of saloons is richly compensated for in 
three ways: (1) the elimination of competition; (2) the 
payment o*f fewer license fees; and (3) the development of 
what might be likened to a franchise value for each license 
controlled under the new scheme. 

Those who voted for the Alderman bill in the Senate 
were: Ahmann, Alderman, Anderson, Bedford, Briggs, 
Calhoun, Campbell, Canfield, Cashman, Clague, Coller, 
Donaldson, Dunn, Dutoit, Farrington, Fosseen, French, 
Glotzbaoh, Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Hall, Hardy, Hin- 


64 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


ton, C. A. Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, Laybourn, 
McColl, McGowan, Naeseth, Poehler, Pugh, Putnam, Rob¬ 
inson, Schaller, Seward, Sullivan, Sunberg, Swanson, With- 
erstine, Works, and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Canestorp, Dale, 
Elwell, A. L. Hanson, Nelson, Sageng, and Thorpe. 

In the House the temperance element had more time 
to analyze the measure, and there was a much larger vote 
against it, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Anderson, 
.Austin, Baldwin, Bendixen, Bjorge, Borgen, Brady, Brown, 
Buck, Campbell, Cary, Carley, Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, 
Denzer, Dorsey, Dower, Doyle, Duea, Ferguson, Fitz¬ 
patrick, Gartside, Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, 
Handlan, Henry, Herzberg, Hinds, L. H, Johnson, Jorgen¬ 
son, Kelly, Kling, Kneeland, Krause, Lende, Lennon, Mc¬ 
Kenzie, McGarry, McGrath, McNeil, Mork, Murphy, Nagel, 
Nimocks, Nolan, Nye, Perry, Peters, Peterson, Pfaender, 
Phillips, Rodenberg, Rowe, Sawyer, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, 
Stone, Stuart, Sullivan, Thayer, Virtue, Wallace, Webb, 
Wells, Welter, Wescott, White, Wohlhuter, F. B. Wright, 
and Zelch. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Adams, Burn- 
quist, Carlson, Conley, Davies, Davis, Fmmel, Friedman, 
Gates, Haugland, Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. F. John¬ 
son, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Lee, Lobeck, Mattson, 
McMartin, Melby, O. B. Nelson, Noble, Opsahl, H. A. 
Putnam, W. H. Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rosenwald, 
Rustad, Sampson, Saugstad, Sulerud, Swendsen, Ware, 
Washburn and C. J. Wright. 

* * * 

Statewide Prohibition. 

State wide prohibition was indirectly voted upon March 
23. E. E. Lobeck’s bill, H. F. No. 743, providing for an 
amendment to the state constitution to prohibit the manu¬ 
facture, sale or transportation of alcoholic liquors, was re- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 65 


ported back from the Temperance Committee with the 
recommendation that it be “indefinitely postponed.” Mr. 
Lobeck moved that the bill be placed on general orders. 
The vote on his substitute motion was as follows, those 
voting “aye” being for the bill; 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, 
Bicknell, Bjorge, Burnquist, Carlson, Conley, Davies, Dor¬ 
sey, Duea, Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. E. Johnson, 
J. N. Johnson, Lee, Lobeck, Mattson, McGrath, McMartin, 
H. Nelson, Noble, Opsahl, H. A. Putnam, W. H. Putnam, 
Rines, Robertson, Rustad, Sampson, Saugstad, Sawyer, 
Spence, Spooner, Selurud, Swendsen, Ware, Washburn, 
Wells and C. J. Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Allen, Ander¬ 
son, Austin, Baldwin, Borgen, Brady, Brown, Buck, Camp¬ 
bell, Carey, Carley, Christensen, Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, 
Davis, Denzer, Doyle, Emmel, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick. 
Friedman, Gartside, Gates, Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, 
Greene, Henry, Herzberg, Jorgenson, Kelly, Kling, Knee- 
land, Krause, Lende, Lennon, MacKenzie, McGarry, Nagel, 
O. B. Nelson, Nimocks, Nolan, Nye, Perry, Peters, Peter¬ 
son, Phillips, Rodenberg, Rowe, Selb, Sikorski, Stone, Sul¬ 
livan, Thayer, Wallace, Welter, Wescott, White, Wohl- 
huter, and F. B. Wright. 


❖ * * 

The Club Bill. 

The fight for the passage of a law giving clubs the right 
to sell liquor without a license was an interesting and 
spirited struggle. It failed in the Senate, and did not 
get the regular anti-temperance vote in the House be¬ 
cause a part of the saloon influence objected to the dis¬ 
crimination and advantage this would have given com¬ 
mercial and social clubs over regularly licensed saloons. 

When the bill, H. F. No. 536, introduced by the Tri- 
County Delegation, was placed upon its final passage in 


66 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


the House but 58 members voted for it, two short of the 
number required to pass it. Then occurred a very unusual 
performance. The vote was not announced for several 
minutes, while friends of the bill skirmished about in the 
corridors and pleaded with opponents of the bill, in a 
desperate endeavor to find the two votes. Otis F. Doyle, 
of St. Cloud, was finally found somewhere, and he re¬ 
corded his vote for the bill, bringing the total to 59. M. 

V. Fitzpatrick of Stewartville, then yielded to the heavy 
pressure brought to bear upon him, and changed his vote 
from “no” to “yes,” which gave the necessary 60 to pass it. 

The vote in the House was as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, Allen, 
Anderson, Austin, Bjorge, Borgen, Brown, Brady, Buck, 
Christensen, Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, Denzer, Dower, 
Doyle, Emmel, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick, Friedman, Gartside, 
Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, Henry, Herzberg, L. 
H. Johnson, Jorgenson, Kelly, Kling, Kneeland, Lennon, 
MacKenzie, McGarry, McNeil, Mork, Murphy, O. B. Nel¬ 
son, Nimocks, Nye, O’Brien, Perry, Peters, Peterson, Sah- 
ler. Sawyer, Selb, Sikorski, Stone, Sullivan, Virtue, Wallace, 
Washburn, Webb, Wells, White, Wohlhuter, F. B. Wright, 
and Zelch. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Baldwin, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Burnquist, Campbell, Carey, Carley, Carl¬ 
son, Conley, Davies, Davis, Dorsey, Duea, Gates, Handlan, 
Haugland, Hinds, Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. E. John¬ 
son, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Krause, Lee, Lobeck, 
Mattson, McGrath, McMartin, Melby, Nagel, H. Nelson, 
Noble, Nolan, Opsahl, Pfaender, Phillips, H. A. Putnam, 

W. H. Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rosenwald, Rowe, Rus- 
tad, Sampson, Saugstad, Spooner, Stuart, Sulerud, Swend- 
sen, Thayer, Ware, Welter, Wescott, C. J. Wright, and Mr. 
Speaker. 

This club bill was killed in the Senate after a spirited 
fight at an evening session, April 21, prolonged until after 
midnight. Some of the amendments by which it was 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 67 


hoped to eliminate questionable features are interesting 
and suggestive. 

Senator Hackney, one of the leaders in the fight against 
the bill, offered this amendment: 

By adding at the-end of paragraph six, after the 
words “school fraternal clubs” the following: 

“Provided, further; that no such club shall be 
authorized and permitted in any district of the state 
where the sale of intoxicating liquors is now prohib¬ 
ited by law.” ' 

Senator Elwell then submitted/these two amendments: 

By adding at the end of line five, on page one of 
the printed bill, the following words: 

“Provided, that no club shall be located within 
one mile of state university.” 

By striking out after the word “that” in line six 
on page one of the printed bill the following words: 
“no license shall be required of a duly incorporated 
social club,” and inserting in lieu thereof the fol¬ 
lowing words, to-wit: “A revenue license of One 
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid annually 
to the city wherein such club is located when said 
club is located in a city of the first class; all other 
clubs organized under the provisions of this act 
shall pay a revenue license of Five Hundred Dol¬ 
lars ($500.00) to the city or municipal corporation 
wherein such club is located.” 

Senator Peterson moved to amend the bill as follows: 

By adding to the end of Section One, the follow¬ 
ing words: 

“Provided further. That all the laws of the State 
of Minnesota regulating and controlling the sale of 
intoxicating liquors shall apply to-sales made under 
this chapter.” 

But every amendment was rejected, which did not mat- 
ter,^as the bill itself was defeated by the following vote 
of 26 to 33: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Alderman, 


68 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


Calhoun, Carpenter. Dunn, Durment, Dutoit, Fosseen, 
French, Glotzbach, Gunn, Hall, Hardy, C. A. Johnson, 
Johnston, Laybourn, McColl, McGowan, Pauly, Poehler. 
Pugh, Robinson, Smith, Sullivan, Vail, Wilson and Works, 
Those who voted in the negative were: Ahmann, And¬ 
erson, Bedford, Campbell, Canestorp, Canfield, Cashman, 
Clague, Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Elwell, Gunderson, Hack¬ 
ney, A. L. Hanson, H. E. Hanson, Hinton, V. L. John¬ 
son, Moonan, Naeseth, Nelson, Peterson, Putnam, Sageng, 
Schaller, Sew'ard, Stephens, Sundberg, Thorpe, Weis, 
White, Witherstine and Wright. 


Thk Minnesota Legislature of 1909 69 


» 


CHAPTER X. 

THE STREET RAILWAY’S LEGISLATIVE 
PROGRAM. 

The politicians who dominated the last legislature were 
courageous plunderers so long as their schemes could be 
concealed from the public, but they became a cowardly 
crowd just as soon as the people saw into their schemes 
to aid the corporations. An aroused public sentiment is 
mightier than the powers of the pool. This fact should 
encourage all who are interested in more representative 
government and teach them that eternal vigilance can ac¬ 
complish wonders, even in a legislature like the last one. 

The 1909 Legislature failed to repeal the primary elec¬ 
tion law, bcause it knew the public would not stand for 
this step backward. The Tonnage Tax Bill passed for 
the same reason—their constituents were watching. But 
probably the most striking illustrations of the power of 
public opinion relate to measures forming a part of the 
Twin City Rapid Transit Company’s legislative program. 

In order that the reader may understand the situation, 
it will be necessary to remind him that municipal condi¬ 
tions in Minneapolis have been changed materially in the 
last few years. The Voters’ League and other militant 
reform influences had so educated and aroused public sen¬ 
timent and brought about such an improved situation in the 
City Council, that the Twin City Rapid Transit Company 
could no longer expect to secure the usual favors from 


70 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


municipal sources. This and other public service corpo' 
rations realized the necessity for getting away from the 
control of municipal authority, and they turned naturally 
to the Legislature for succor. 

There was introduced a Public Utilities Commission bTll, 
which provided that the State Railroad and Warehouse 
Commission should have sole authority over them. The 
reader who is familiar with the altogether beautiful har¬ 
mony existing between that body and the transportation 
companies over which it exercises control, will commend 
the good judgment of these Minneapolis public utilities in 
seeking to escape the watchful eyes of the people at home 
and to get into the jurisdiction of this “safe” state tri¬ 
bunal. . ^ r » • 

■ But the scheme failed, because the people saw through it 
and let the Legislature know that they saw through it. 

• This public utilities commission bill was H. F. No. 300. 
It. was introduced jointly by Messrs. Wallace, W. H., Put¬ 
nam and Dorsey. A trip to the Wisconsin capital, and a 
careful investigation of the operation of the Wisconsin law, 
which seems to be working well in that state, largely be¬ 
cause an exceptional governor had appointed an exception¬ 
al commission to enforce it, convinced these gentlemen 
that the principle could wisely be applied to the Minnesota 
situation, 

H. F. No. 300 was introduced January 28th and ap¬ 
peared certain of passage. On Feb. 4th printed copies 
were in the hands of members, an unusual distinction ’for 
a bill still in its committee. Later, five hundredomore 
copies were printed. Then nothing more was officially} 
heard of the bill until April 14th, when it was quietly 
chloroformed by the Committee on General Legislation.' 
It seemed that the Saturday Lunch Club of Minneapolis,- 
and other organizations,- had appeared on the scene and 
made it known that the people knew all about the par¬ 
entage and purpose of the bill: After that demonstration 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 71 


of alert public sentiment, no amount of corporation influ¬ 
ence could have enacted it into law. 

♦ * * 

Nolan’s Street Railway Bill. 

Public opipion also killed an even more vicious street 
railway bill. This was H. F. No. 266, introduced by 
W. A. Nolan of Grand Meadow. Since the bill tells its 
own story, it is here reproduced. As originally introduced 
in the House, the full text of the bill was as follows: 

“A Bill for an Act Placing Street Railways under 
the Jurisdiction of the Railroad and Warehouse 
Commission. 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of 
Minnesota. 

Section 1. That all street railways and street rail¬ 
way companies shall hereafter be subject to the 
supervision and control of the Railroad and Ware¬ 
house Commission, and all power and authority now 
vested by law, ordinance, charter, contract, or other¬ 
wise, in Common Councils or other governing bodies 
of any city or other municipality in this state over 
street railways and street railway companies, is here¬ 
by vested exclusively in the Railroad and Warehouse 
Commission, and in the exercise of such power and 
authority, said Committee shall proceed, as nearly 
as practicable, in the manner provided in Chapter 
28 of the Revised Laws of 1905 and the several acts 
amendatory thereof. 

Section 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent 
herewith are hereby repealed. 

Section 3. This act to be in force from and 
after its passage.” 

The language is very plain. The bill as introduced des¬ 
troyed all council and other local authority over these 
municipal franchise corporations. It vested all power and 


72 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


authority “exclusively” in the hands of the Railroad and 
Warehouse Commission, a body of men not elected by 
the people to perform this duty and without special train¬ 
ing or qualifications for such service. 

On January 26th, this bill was referred to the author’s 
own committee on Express, Telegraph and Electric Rail¬ 
ways, composed of the following members: Messrs.’ No¬ 
lan, J. T. Johnson, Thayer, Wohlhuter, Stuart, Gates, 
Brady, Greene, Stone, Sullivan, Conroy, Lennon, L. H. 
Johnson, Davis, Kling, J. N. Johnson and Grant. 

On February 19, H. F. No- 266 was reported back to 
the House from this committee with the following im¬ 
portant amendment added to the end of section 2: 

“But nothing herein contained shall authorize the 
modification, or impairment of any duty, obligation, 
right or privilege imposed by or contained in any 
law, contract, obligation or any ordinance or resolu¬ 
tion heretofore adopted.” 

The bill as amended provided very clearly that street 
railway companies would be free to conduct their business 
as they pleased, with neither the municipalities nor the 
state having any right of regulation beyond the local laws 
then in force. 

Impossible as it may seem, this notorious corporation 
scheme progressed as far as the calendar in the House. 
There was no protest when Nolan’s Committee on Ex¬ 
press, Telegraph and Electric Railways reported it back 
with the “joker” amendment and the recommendation that 
it “do pass.” And a majority of the House, sitting as a 
committee of the whole, voted to advance it to the calendar 
on March 12. There was vigorous opposition at this 
point, but a majority voted with Nolan and L. H. John¬ 
son because there was no roll call, and consequently no 
public record of their support. The discreet and coward¬ 
ly conduct of members who know the public is looking, 
(m will later have an opportunity to review the records, 
was evidenced at this point in the attitude of L. H. John¬ 
son, the former speaker. When the fight was being made 


The Minnesota Lixislature of 1909 


/o 


to get the bill past general orders, a proceeding in which 
only an “aye” and “no” vote was taken, Mr. Johnson 
made the strongest speech for the measure. Later when 
the roll was called and a permanent record made, he voted 
against it. 

In the meantime public opinion was at work. The peo¬ 
ple of the Twin Cities became so generally aroused that 
■even the big dailies took notice and joined in the agita¬ 
tion against the bill. The measure remained on the cal¬ 
endar until March 16, its author not daring to risk a vote 
^ -on its final passage. Then Burnquist, th? only House in¬ 
surgent from St. Paul, moved that it be sent to the 
Judiciary Committee for a public hearing. A roll call was 
demanded, which furnished the only record on the bill. 
Burnquist's motion carried by the following vote, those 
voting “aye” being either honestly against the bill or afraid 
to openly support it: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, And¬ 
erson, Austin, Baldwin, Bendixen, Bicknell, Borgen, Brady. 
Burnquist, Campbell, Carey, Carley, Carlson, Congdon. 
Conley, Davies, Denzer, Emmel, Ferguson, Friedman. 
Greene, Handlan, Haugland, Herzberg, Holmberg, Horton. 
J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, L. H. Johnson, Kelly, Knee- 
land, Krause, Lee, Lende, Lobeck, Mattson, McNeil, Mur¬ 
phy, O. B. Nelson, Noble, Nye, O’Brien, Opsahl, Perry. 
Peters, Peterson, Pfaender, Phillips, H. A. Putnam, W. H. 
Putnam, Rines, Rodenberg, Ro-we, Sahler, Sampson, Saug- 
stad, Sawyer, Sikorski, Spence, Spooner, Stone, Selerud. 
Sullivan, Swendsen, Virtue, Wallace, Ware, Washburn, 
Welter, C. J. Wright, F. B. Wright, and Zelch. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Buck, Christ- 
■ensen, Conroy, Dalzell, Davies, Dorsey, Doyle, Duea, Fitz¬ 
patrick, Gates, Goodspeed, Grant, Henry, C. F. Johnson, 
Jorgenson, Kling, Lennon, MacKenzie, McGarry, McGrath. 
McMartin, Melby. Mork, Nagel, H. Nelson, Nimocks. No¬ 
lan, Robertson, Rosenwald, Rustad, Stuart, Thayer, Wells. 
Wescott, White and Wohlhuter. 

.-^fter being given into the custody of the Judiciary Com- 


74 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


mittee, this street railway bill had to submit to a hear¬ 
ing, and the public got the opportunity for a good look 
into its interior anatomy. Judge W. A. Lancaster and 
other members of the Minneapolis Bar Association made 
the examination, which proved to be of a post mortem 
nature, for it revealed such an acute corporation condition 
that its parent and supporters did not dare to make an 
effort to save it. 

During this public hearing, and at other times when 
the measure was under attack, Mr. Nolan contended that 
its chief purpose was to provide means whereby the Twin 
City Rapid Transit Company would be forced to let coun¬ 
try electric lines into the cities. In this way he tried to 
create the impression, and he did deceive certain country 
members, that this was a fight between the Twin City 
Rapid Transit Company and the Dan Patch Air Line. 
There was absolutely nothing to this claim. Both con¬ 
cerns were for the bill. No one knew this better than 
Nolan himself, for as a former stockholder and director 
of the Dan Patch Air Line he could not have been ignor¬ 
ant of the arrangement made between the two companies 
by which the outside concern was to enter Minneapolis 
over the lines of the other. 

Still he adhered to that excuse, even after a prospectus 
of the Dan Patch Company had been produced which con¬ 
tained the signed promise of the Twin City Rapid Transit 
Company’s president to permit that line to use the urban 
tracks of the Twin City Company. But when W. D. Wash¬ 
burn, Jr., introduced an honest bill, specifically covering 
this point, Mr. Nolan proved his own insincerity by mov¬ 
ing the “indefinite postponement” of both bills on the sub¬ 
ject. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 75 


CHAPTER XI. 

DIRECT LEGISLATION AND PRE-ELECTION 
PLEDGES. 

The quiet, irresistible power of the pool was dem¬ 
onstrated most effectively in the defeat of every attempt 
to pass an Initiative and Referendum bill. -No reform 
program is so much feared by politicians and corporations 
as direct legislation. They know that if the people had 
the right to pass upon the acts of a legislature and to 
initiate legislation, if necessary, corruption and partiality 
in law-making would well nigh disappear. With the 
power of veto vested in the people, individuals or inter¬ 
ests would rarely take the trouble to bribe or coerce a 
legislature into the enactment of an iniquitous law. 

But I do not need to discuss the merits of the direct 
legislation idea. Its justification is admirably shown in 
the character and motive of those who oppose it. If it 
were not the most vital and necessary of all reforms the 
pool would never have gone to such extremes to defeat 
the measure. 

In order to kill the Initiative and Referendum bill in 
the house the pool had to make twenty-eight men re¬ 
pudiate their pre-election promises to their constituents. 
In private life the man who willfully breaks a promise lays 
himself open to the censure of a very, ugly name. Only 
the excessive leniency of the American people toward the 
shortcomings of their legislative representatives deters 
the public from applying the same name to men who re¬ 
pudiate solemn political promises deliberately entered 
into. 


76 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


The Initiative and Referendum bill that came to a vote 
in the House was H. F. No. 183, introduced and cham¬ 
pioned by J. N. Johnson, of Canby. The Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee of the House acted on this bill when nineteen, of 
the twenty-seven members of the committee were present 
and voted as follows: Messrs. Austin, Christenson, Cong- 
don, Dalzell, Graham, Grant, Kling, MacKenzie, Pfaender, 
Selb, Stuart, Wallace and White voted to kill the bill by 
“indefinite postponement.” Messrs. J. N. Johnson, Haug- 
land, Kneeland, Carley, Burnquist and Bicknell voted to 
recommend the bill for passage. 

The House was placed upon record on this measure 
February twenty-fifth, when “majority” and “minority” 
reports came from the Judiciary Committee. A report 
favoring “indefinite postponement” was presented on be¬ 
half of the thirteen, and Mr. Bicknell, chairman of the 
Committee, moved its adoption. Mr. J. N. Johnson made 
a substitute motion that the “minority” report, signed by 
himself, Haugland, Carley, Burnquist and Davies recom¬ 
mending that the bill “do pass,” be adopted. The vote was 
as follows, those voting “aye” being for the bill: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, An¬ 
derson, Bendixen, Bjorge, Brown, Burnquist, Campbell,. 
Carley, Carlson, Conley, Davies, Duea, Fitzpatrick, Greene,. 
Haugland, Holton, Horton, Johnson, C. E., Johnson, J. N., 
Johnson, J. T., Jorgenson, Kneeland, Lee, Lobeck, Mc¬ 
Grath, McNeill, Melby, Noble, Nye, Opsahl, Phillips, Put¬ 
man, H. A., Putman, W. H.. Rosenwald, Rustad, Sahler,. 
Sampson, Saugstad, Sawyer, Sulerud, Sullivan, Thayer, 
Ware, Wright, C. J., Mr. Speaker. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Austin, Bald¬ 
win, Bicknell, Borgen, Brady, Buck, Carey, Christenson, 
Congdon. Dalzell, Davis, Denzer, Dorsey, Dower, Doyle, 
Emmel, Ferguson,'Friedman, Gartside, Gates, Goodspeed, 
Graham, Grant, Handlan, Henry, Herzberg, Hinds, Holm- 
berg, Johnson, L. H., Kelly, Kling, Krause, Lende, Len¬ 
non, MacKenzie. Mattson, McGarry, McMartin, Mork, 
Nagel, Nelson, H., Nelson, O. B., Nimocks, Nolan. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


// 

O’Brien, Perry, Peters, Peterson, Pfaender, Rines, Rob¬ 
ertson, Rodenberg, Rowe, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, Spooner, 
Stone, Stuart, Swendsen, Wallace, Webb, Wells, White, 
Wohlhuter, Washburn, Wright, F. B., Zelch. 

The last Democratic state platform contained this plank: 

“Recognizing the Initiative and Referendum as a 
most efficient means by which the citizenship of 
this state may beneficently control legislation and 
strengthen and perpetuate democratic government, 
we pledge the Democratic administration of Minne¬ 
sota and the Democratic members of the Senate 
and House of Representatives to the support of the 
measure before the last legislature, known as S. F. 
No. 78, the Fitzpatrick bill, or of some measure 
equally effective, and we appeal to all citizens of 
Minnesota, regardless of party, to see that this, 
most important measure is enacted into law in the 
coming session.” 

Twenty-one Democratic members in the House were 
elected on that platform, and yet only five of that num¬ 
ber voted for the bill. 

The Democrats who violated their party platform obliga¬ 
tion by voting “no” on this bill were: Baldwin, Brady, Dor¬ 
sey, Emmel, Friedland, Handlan, Herzberg, Kelly, O’Brien, 
Peters, Pfaender, Sikorski and Spence. Three of the 
twenty-one Democrats in the House, Murphy, Virtue 
and Welter, dodged the vote, which amounted to the same 
thing as voting against it. 

The Minnesota Federation of Labor secured even more 
specific pledges of support from forty-five House mem¬ 
bers, and yet eighteen of that forty-five repudiated their 
promises, given over their own signatures. 

The eighteen members who broke their agreement with 
the Federation of Labor were the following: Brady, 
Christensen, Dorsey, MacKenzie, Mattson, Nimocks, 
Perry, Pfaender, Rodenberg, Rowe, Gates, Handlan, L. H. 
Johnson, Selb,^ Spence, Spooner, Wallace and White. 

It would be mighty interesting to know the character 


78 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


of the influence or the coercion that was used to induce 
thirteen Democrats to violate their contract with the 
people, expressed so plainly in the party platform, and to 
move eighteen House members to openly repudiate their 
written pledges to support the measure. 

A similar Initiative and Referendum bill was introduced 
in the Senate by Ole O. Sageng, of Otter Tail county. It 
passed into the hands of the Judiciary Committee on Jan¬ 
uary 22, where it hibernated during the winter. The bill 
is still sleeping in that committee. 

* ♦ ♦ 


Muzzling the Masses. 

While the pool was able, in its desperate fight against 
direct legislation, to compel those eighteen men to break 
their pre-election promises, these interests did not find it 
easy to deal with such a situation. 

At the previous session of 1907, anticipating just such 
difficulties, the pool attempted to make unlawful any and 
all reform efforts of this kind. In order that the people 
may know what was contemplated by this pernicious meas¬ 
ure, which was introduced by Senator Hinton, I here re¬ 
produce the bill, with a record of the vote upon it in the 
Senate: 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of 
Minnesota: 

Section 1. Any person, either individually or as 
an officer, or member of any committee, corporation 
or association, which solicits or demands of any 
candidate for school director, member of a board of 
education, or for member of any legislative body, 
either municipal, state or federal, that he shall vote 
for or against any particular bill or measure which 
may come before such body to which he may be 
elected, and any candidate who signs or gives any 
pledge that he will vote for or against any such bill 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 79 


or measure that may be brought before such body, 
is guilty of a misdemeanor, and any candidate con¬ 
victed under the provisions of this section is, in ad¬ 
dition, disqualified from holding the office to which 

. he may be elected. 

The provisions of this section do not apply to 
any pledge or promise that any such candidate 
may give to a convention by which he may be nom¬ 
inated to such office, or those who sign a certificate 
of his nomination, or to the voters of the munici¬ 
pality, district or state wherein he is candidate for 
election, either in public addresses or through the 
press, or in any other public way. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect and be in 
force from and after its passage. 

The Hinton bill was defeated, the vote being as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Anderson, 
Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Coller, Cooke, Dunn, Dur- 
ment, Farrington, Gunn, Hall, Hardy, Hinton, Laybourn, 
McColl, Pugh. Putnam, Seward, Smith, Stephens, Vail 
and White—22, 

Those who voted in the negative were: Ahmann, Ald¬ 
erman, Canestorp, Canfield, Carpenter, Cashman, Dale, 
Donaldson, Elwell, Fitzpatrick, Fosseen, Glotzbach, Gun¬ 
derson, Hackney, H. E. Hanson, A. L. Hanson, V. L. 
Johnson, McGowan, Naeseth, Nelson, Pauly, Peterson, 
Robinson, Sageng, Sullivan, Sundberg, Swanson, Thorpe, 
Weis, Witherstine, Works and Wright—33. 

Bedford, Clague, Dutoit, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, 
Moonan, Poehler, Schaller and Wilson did not vote either 
way on the Hinton bill. 

Although great pressure was brought to bear upon 
members to support the Hinton bill, especially by the 
liquor interests, only twenty-two senators dared to go on 
record as favoring so vicious and un-American a principle 
as that embodied in the measure. The right of his con¬ 
stituents to initiate legislative policies ought to be en¬ 
couraged by every honest representative of the people, if 


80 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


he desires to represent in good faith those who elected 
him. 

The passage of the Hinton bill would have given the 
special interests substantial aid in their fight to continue 
their control of the politics of the state and the making 
of its laws. And it would have taken from the people 
the right they now possess of compelling candidates pub¬ 
licly and privately to pledge themselves on questions of 
common concern. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 81 


CHAPTER XII. 

WOMAN SUFFRAGE. 

The question of woman suffrage should be considered 
in connection with the Initiative and Referendum because 
they are two of the biggest educational reform movements 
in our political life. One of the most interesting things 
about the defeat of both of these issues is that the ene¬ 
mies of both are invariably the same and the same meth¬ 
ods used to defeat one defeat the other. The special 
privileged classes and the professional politicians are con¬ 
stitutionally opposed to more voters and to the extension 
of more power to those who now vote. The enfrachise- 
ment of woman would mean the one and direct legisla¬ 
tion the other. 

The merits of both of these measures, direct legisla¬ 
tion and votes for women, are emphasized in the character 
and purpose of the opposition to their enactment. Sen¬ 
ator W. W. Dunn, attorney and lobbyist for the brewery 
interests, was most active against the Sageng Woman Suf¬ 
frage bill in the Senate. Other components of the pool 
were equally interested in the defeat of this measure in 
both branches of-the legislature. 

The Sageng bill was reported for “indefinite postpone¬ 
ment” by Senator Dunn’s Committee on Elections, Feb¬ 
ruary 25th. Senator Sageng refused to submit to that kind 
of death for the measure and moved that the bill be print¬ 
ed and placed on “general orders.” His motion had to 
give place to a substitute motion by Senator Seward that 
the bill be re-referred to thq Committee on Elections, 
which carried. On March 4th that committee reported 


82 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


the bill without recommendation, and it therefore pro¬ 
gressed to “general orders,” where the Senate, sitting in 
committee of the whole, “indefinitely postponed” it, 
March 29th. Up to this stage the measure had been so 
manipulated as to save its opponents the necessity of 
going on record. But on March 31st Senator Sageng 
moved a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill 
had been indefinitely postponed on general orders and 
demanded a roll call. The motion was defeated, 26 to 29, 
as follows, those voting “aye” being for the advancement 
of the bill: 

Those voting in the affirmative were: Bedford, Cash- 
man, Clague, Coller, Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Elwell, 
Gunderson, Hackney, H. E. Hanson, V. L. Johnson, 
Moonan, Nelson, Pauly, Peterson, Putnam, Sageng, 
Schaller, Seward, Sundberg, Thorpe, White, Wilson, 
Witherstine and Wright. 

Those voting in the negative were: Ahmann, Aider- 
man, Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Canestorp, Canfield, 
Carpenter, Dunn, Durment, Dutoit, French, Gunn, Hall, 
Hardy, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, Laybourn, McColl, 
Naeseth, Pugh, Robinson, Smith, Stephens, Sullivan, 
Swanson, Vail, Weis and Works. 

J. N. Johnson, author of the Initiative and Referendum 
bill, also championed woman suffrage in the House. His 
bill, H. F. No. 228, was reported from the Committee on 
Elections “without recommendation.” Mr. Johnson 
moved that it be advanced to “general orders,” and Mr. 
O’Brien made a substitute motion that the bill be “in¬ 
definitely postponed.” The roll call was upon this sub¬ 
stitute motion, those voting “aye” being against the bill. 

Those voting in the affirmative were: Anderson, Bald¬ 
win, Borgen, Brown, Buck, Burnquist, Carey, Conroy, 
Dalzell, Davis, Denzer, Emmel, Friedman, Gartside, Gates, 
Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, Handlan, Henry, 
Herzberg, L. H. Johnson, Jorgenson, Kelly, Kling, 
Krause, Lende, Lennon, MacKenzie, Mattson, McGarry, 
McNeil, Murphy, Nagel, H. Nelson, O. B. Nelson, Nim- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 83 


ocks, Nolan, Nye, O’Brien, Perry, Peterson, Pfaender, 
Rodenberg, Rowe, Rustad, Sahler, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, 
Stone, Sullivan, Wallace, Wells, Welter, Wescott, White 
and F. B. Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Adams, Allen, 
Bendixen, Bicknell, Bjorge, Campbell, Carley, Carlson, 
Conley, Davies, Dorsey, Duea, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick, 
Haugland, Hinds, Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. E. John¬ 
son, J. N. Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kneeland, Lee, Lobeck, 
McGrath, McMartin, Melby, Noble, Opsahl, Phillip, H. A. 
Putnam, W. H. Putnam, Rines, Robertson, Rosenwald, 
Sampson, Saugstad, Sawyer, Spooner, Stuart, Sulerud, 
Swendsen, Ware, Wohlhuter and C. J. Wright. 


84 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER XIII. 

THE POOL AND' THE PRIMARY. 

While Minnesota was among the first to adopt the 
primary election principle, it has since dropped out of the 
progressive class by failing to extend the popular primary 
to the nomination of all state officials and United States 
senators. Rather than advance the legislature has indi¬ 
cated a disposition to go back to the old boss-ruled con¬ 
vention system. Several bills repealing the primary elec¬ 
tion law were introduced at the last session, but the meas¬ 
ure that came nearest to the finishing line, and the one that 
would certainly have been enacted had*the pool and poli¬ 
ticians dared outrage the sentiment of the state, was Sen¬ 
ator Canfield’s S. F. No. 362. 

Mr. Canfield did not belong to the crowd that worked 
with him for the passage of this bill. In all save his 
belief that the primary was ineffectual, he was an insur¬ 
gent. That was why the gang got back of his bill. A bad 
bill always slides along easier and goes farther with a 
patriot than a politician pushing it. 

The Canfield bill provided that nominations for all elec¬ 
tive officers should be made by delegates in convention. 
It meant a return to the old discredited system. 

Senator W. W. Dunn, of the Hamm Brewing Company, 
and general all-around lobbyist for the liquor interests, 
was chairman of the Senate Committee on Elections. The 
interests that he represented preferred conventions to 
primaries, and naturally he did his best to get S. F. No. 
362 out of his committee without a minority report. On 
February 24 he got the Elections Committee together un- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 85 


der circumstances which made it impossible for Senators 
Cashman, Gunderson and Peterson to attend. Thus these 
three members, all favorable to the primary, had no op¬ 
portunity to protest before the bill came before the Senate. 

The Canfield bill was defeated in the Senate by the fol¬ 
lowing vote of 23 to 34; 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Anderson, 
Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Canfield, Carpenter, Coller, 
Cooke, Dale, Dunn, French, Gunn, Hall, H. E. Hanson, 
Hinton, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, Putnam, Smith, Stephens, 
Thorpe, Witherstine, and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Ahmann, Bed¬ 
ford, Canestorp, Cashman, Clague, Donaldson, Durment, 
Elwell, Fosseen, Glotzbach, Gunderson, A. L. Hanson, 
Hardy, V. L. Johnson, Laybourn, McColl, McGowan, Nae- 
seth, Nelson, Pauly, Peterson, Poehler, Pugh, Robinson, 
Sageng, Schaller, Seward, Sullivan, Sunberg, Vail, Weis, 
White, Wilson, and Works. 

* * * 


A State Wide Pfimary* 

Senator Moonan made an attempt through S. F. No. 69 
to extend the primary to all elective officers, but the Senate 
refused to make this advance by a vote of 28 to 32, as 
follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Ahmann, 
Anderson, Canestorp, Cashman, Dale, Donaldson, Dutoit, 
Elwell, Fosseen, Glotzbach, A. L. Hanson, H. E. Hanson, 
Hardy, V. L. Johnson, McColl, McGowan, Moonan, Nae- 
seth, Pauly, Peterson, Poehler, Robinson, Sageng, Schaller, 
Seward, Sundberg, Weis and Works. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Alderman, 
Bedford, Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Canfield, Carpenter, 
Clague, Coller, Cooke, Dunn, Durment, French, Gunder¬ 
son, Gunn, Hall, Hinton, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, Lay- 


86 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


bourn, Nelson, Pugh, Putnam, Smith, Stephens, Sullivan, 
Thorpe, Vail, White, Wilson, Witherstine and Wright. 

* * * 

The McColl Bill. 

Senator McColl’s bill, S. F. No. 374, providing for the 
election of United States senators by direct vote of the 
people, was reported upon by the Senate Committee on 
Elections, February 15, their recommendation being that 
the bill be “indefinitely postponed.” This report was 
adopted. But on March 15 Senator McColl moved that 
the vote by which the report of the Committee on Elec¬ 
tions upon S. F. No. 374 was adopted be reconsidered. 
This provided the only test upon the question, and re¬ 
sulted as follows, those voting “aye” being for the direct 
election of United States senators: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Ahmann, 
Bedford, Cashman, Coller, Donaldson, Dutoit, Elwell, Far¬ 
rington, Fosseen, Glotzbach, A. L. Hanson, H. E. Han¬ 
son, Hardy, McColl, McGowan, Moonan, Pauly, Poehler, 
Robinson, Sageng, Schaller, Sundberg, Vail, Weis, With¬ 
erstine, and Works. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Alderman, And¬ 
erson, Briggs, Calhoun, Campbell, Canestorp, Canfield, 
Carpenter, Clague, Cooke, Dale, Dunn, Durment, French, 
Gunderson, Gunn, Hackney, Hall, Hinton, C. A. John¬ 
son, V. L. Johnson, Johnston, Laybourn, Naeseth, Nelson, 
Peterson, Pugh, Putnam, Seward, Smith, Stephens, Sulli¬ 
van, Swanson, Thorpe, White, Wilson and Wright. 

♦ * * 

Repealing the “Corrupt Practices” Act. 

There was a pair of bad election bills that the pool 
wanted passed. One was the repeal of the primary elec- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 87 


tion law. Its companion was S. F. No. Ill, introduced by 
D. S. Hall, a bill repealing every section of the “corrupt 
practices act.” The scope and extent of this bill was 
changed greatly by the following amendment proposed by 
Senator F. H. Peterson: 

Amend both title and section one (1) thereof by 
striking out the words and figures “three hundred 
and forty-eight (348) to three hundred and fifty- 
eight (358)” and inserting in lieu thereof the words 
and figures, “three hundred and forty-nine (349.” 

Modified by this amendment the bill repeals only that sec¬ 
tion of the corrupt practices act which placed a limit upon 
the amount different candidates could expend legally on 
election. 

The vote in the Senate upon the final passage of the bill 
as amended was 33 to 11, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Alderman, 
Anderson, Calhoun, Canestorp, Carpenter, Cooke, Dale, 
Dunn, Dutoit, Farrington, French, Glotzbach, Gunn, Hall, 
H. E. Hanson, Hinton, C. A. Johnson, Johnston, Mc¬ 
Gowan, Nelson, Peterson, Poehler, Pugh, Putnam, Robin¬ 
son, Smith, Stephens, Sullivan, Thorpe, Weis, Wilson, 
Works and Wright. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Ahmann, Bed¬ 
ford, Briggs, Cashman, Donaldson, Durment, Fosseen, A. 
L. Hanson, Sageng, Sundberg, and White. 

This measure was defeated in the House April 21 by 
a vote of 49 to 65, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Allen, And¬ 
erson, Austin, Borgen, Brady, Brown, Buck, Christensen, 
Congdon, Conroy, Dalzell, Denzer, Doyle, Ferguson, Fitz¬ 
patrick, Gartside, Grant, Greene, Handlan, Henry, L. H. 
Johnson, Kelly, Kling, Krause, Lennon, MacKenzie, Mc- 
Garry, McNeil, Mork, Nagel, Nimocks, Nolan, Nye, 
O’Brien, Perry, Peters, Peterson, Phillips, Rines, Roden- 
berg, Sahler, Selb, Stone, Sullivan, Virtue, Wescott, White, 
F. B. Wright and Zelch. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Baldwin, Ben- 


88 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


dixen, Bicknell, Bjorge, Burnquist, Campbell, Carey, Car- 
ley, Carlson, Conley, Davies, Davis, Dorsey, Dower, Duea^ 
Emmel, Friedman, Gates, Goodspeed, Haugland, Hinds, 
Holmberg, Holten, Horton, C. E. Johnson, J. N. Johnson, 
J. T. Johnson, Jorgenson, Kneeland, Lee, Lende, Lobeck, 
Mattson, McGrath, McMartin, Melby, Murphy, H. Nelson, 
O. B. Nelson, Noble, Opsahl, Pfaender, H. A. Putnam, W. 
H, Putnam, Robertson, Rosenwald, Rustad, Sampso.n, 
Saugstad, Sawyer, Sikorski, Spence, Spooner, Stuart, Sule- 
rud, Swendsen, Thayer, Wallace, Ware, Washburn, Webb, 
Welter, Wohlhuter, C. J. Wright, and Mr. Speaker. 

Neither the people nor their political enemies either 
lost or gained much through the changed election laws, 
which suited the politicians and corporations very well. 
The people unquestionably should have been given a gen¬ 
eral extension of the primary. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 89 


CHAPTER XIV. 

LOG-ROLLING—AN EXAMPLE AND A REMEDY. 

I have already suggested the existence of that pernicious 
evil in Minnesota law-making, known aS log-rolling. Un¬ 
der this system practically nothing is considered on its 
own merits. Every measure is a matter of barter. 

If it were possible to legislate to that end, and a bill 
were introduced to bring Heaven to Minnesota and keep 
it here, the measure could hardly pass our state legislature 
unless the author were willing to secure votes through 
log-rolling. He would have to promise to support the 
pet measure of each of a majority of his colleagues be¬ 
fore he could obtain their support for his bill. “You do 
this and I’ll do that,” is the attitude of almost every mem¬ 
ber. 

I believe that few legislators realize that this amounts 
to bribery. But substantially that is what it is. One mem- 
l)er sells his vote on a certain measure and buys a vote 
for his own. It is none the less bribery because no money 
is involved. Under this system votes are the medium of 
exchange. 

Ole O. Sageng, 59th District, Otter Tail County—ii 

probably the freest from this “trading” taint of any mem¬ 
ber of either branch. He recognized the evil clearly and 
fought it at every opportunity. When the Cass Lake Normal 
School bill was before the Senate he attacked it in one 
of the strongest speeches of the session. That measure 
had little to commend it, yet so diligently and energetic¬ 
ally did its authors “trade” that it passed both House and 
Senate. 


90 Th-e Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


Mr. Sageng has made an enviable record in many ways. 
With him every measure has always been supported or op¬ 
posed solely because of its provisions and purposes. He 
was possibly the only member in either body who always 
read and studied every bill that was acted upon. Up to the 
middle of the last session he had earned a distinction prob¬ 
ably never before equalled in any legislative body. During 
one term in the House and a session and a half in the 
Senate, Mr. Sageng missed only one roll call, which oc¬ 
curred when he had temporarily left the chamber to get 
a book. 

Senator Sageng’s greatest service to the state consisted 
in his fight to reform the rules, curtail the power of stand¬ 
ing committees and change the system that controls leg¬ 
islative procedure. He had sufficient ability to see that 
legislative methods must be reformed before other re¬ 
forms would be possible. He fought not Cannon, but 
Cannonism, as that element in law-making manifested it¬ 
self in the legislature. 

Always alert and fearless and fair, Sageng stood as the 
advocate of a more deliberate Senate, with honesty and 
the public welfare as the basis of the consideration of 
every measure. ^ 

D. M. Gunn, 52nd District, Grand Rapids. —The Cass 
Lake Normal bill was in charge of Gunn in the Senate. 
Since its foundation and superstructure were built of 
barter, his performance in getting it through the upper 
branch would brand him as about the leading exponent 
of legislative log-rolling. He stood with the pool in every¬ 
thing. 

P. H. McGarry, 52nd District, Walker —had charge of 
the Cass Lake bill in the House and succeeded in trading 
it through that body. He needs no further characteriza¬ 
tion as a patron of the pool and its methods. 

The Cass Lake Normal Bill. 

There has already been sufficient suggestion as to the 
character of this measure. It passed the Senate by the 
following vote: 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 91 


Those who voted in the affirmative were: Alderman, 
Calhoun, Campbell, Coller, Dunn, Durment, Dutoit, Far¬ 
rington, Glotzbach, Gunn, Hall, Hardy, Hinton, C. A. 
Johnson, V. L. Johnson, Laybourn, McColl, McGowan, 
Moonan, Pauly, Poehler, Pugh, Putnam, Robinson, Seward, 
Smith, Sullivan, Swanson, Vail, Weis, Wilson, and Wither- 
stine—32, 

Those who voted in the negative were: Ahmann, An¬ 
derson, Bedford, Briggs, Canestorp, Canfield, Cashman, 
Clague, Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Elwell, Fosseen, French, 
Gunderson, A. L. Hanson, H. E, Hanson, Johnston, Nae- 
seth. Nelson, Peterson, Sageng, Thorpe, White and Works 
—25. 


The Bill in the House. 

This bill passed the House April 2nd with just enough 
votes, as follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Allen, An¬ 
derson, Austin, Baldwin, Bjorge, Borgen, Brady, Brown, 
Buck, Carley, Christenson, Congdon, Dalzell, Denzer, Dor¬ 
sey, Emmel, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick, Friedman, Gates, 
Goodspeed, Graham, Grant, Greene, Handlan, Herzberg, 
L. H. Johnson, Jorgenson, Kelly, Kling, Lende, Lennon, 
MacKenzie, McGarry, McMartin, Melby, Nimocks, Nolan, 
O’B'rien, Perry, Peters, Pfaender, Phillips, Rodenberg, 
Rowe, Sahler, Selb, Sikorski, Spence, Stone, Stuart, Sul¬ 
livan, Thayer, Virtue, Wells, Welter, Wescott, White, 
Wohlhuter, and F. B. Wright.—60. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Adams, Ben- 
dixen, Bicknell, Burnquist, Campbell, Carlson, Conley, 
Davies, Davis, Dower, Doyle, Duea, Gartside, Haugland, 
Hinds, Holmberg, Holton, Horton, C. E. Johnson, J. N. 
Johnson, J. T. Johnson, Kneeland, Krause, Lee, Lobeck, 
Mattson, McGrath, McNeil, Nagel, H. Nelson, O. B. Nel¬ 
son, Noble, Nye, Opsahl, Peterson, H. A. Putnam, W. H. 
Putnam, Rines, Rosenwald, Robertson, Rustad, Sampson, 


92 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


Saugstad, Sawyer, Spooner, Sulerud, Swendsen, Wallace, 
Ware, Washburn, Webb, and C. J. Wright—52, 


* * * 


A Remedy for Log-Rolling. 

Direct legislation, discussed in a previous chapter, 
would give the people power over all such situations as 
above recited. If the people had the weapon ready for 
use it would not be necessary to invoke the referendum ex¬ 
cept under extraordinary conditions, but the remedy would 
be at hand if it were needed to undo the work of the 
system. 

Here is a constitutional amendment proposed for the 
state of Oregon which would undoubtedly help much to 
end the log-rolling evil: 

“Every citizen shall have the right to bring an 
action in the circuit court at the seat of govern¬ 
ment against any measure within ten days after it 
is passed by the legislative assembly, alleging that 
the same was passed by bargaining, trading, log¬ 
rolling or other forms of undue influence. Sum¬ 
mons and a copy of the complaint shall be served 
upon the attorney general and the presiding officers 
of both houses as other process is served. The at¬ 
torney general shall defend the action, but senators 
and representatives- may employ assistant counsel. 
The case shall be advanced on the docket if neces¬ 
sary and tried within twenty days after the close 
of the session. The verdict of the jury shall be on 
preponderance of evidence. If the jury finds from 
the evidence that they believe the bill was passed 
by any undue influence, that verdict shall be_ filed 
with the secretary of state; and as to such measure 
the verdict shall have the same effect as a petition 
for the referendum; said bill shall be referred to the 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 93 


people by the secretary of state for approval or 
rejection at the next regular general election. Sen¬ 
ators, representatives, officers and other persons 
may be subpoenaed and compelled to testify after the 
close of the session, but they shall not be prosecuted 
criminally or civilly for any action to Avhich they 
shall testify.” 

Since log-rolling is the commonest and worst of all 
legislative practices, I believe that members of both House 
and Senate should take the following additional oath of 
office: 

“I do further affirm and promise the voters of the 
State of Minnesota that during my term of office, in 
acting or voting as such officer upon any measure, 
I will always vote solely on my judgment that the 
bill or resolution will or will not advance the gen¬ 
eral welfare, and without reference to the vote, ac¬ 
tion or caucus of members on that or any other 
measure, and without any ' understanding except 
my public pledge to the people or instructions from 
the people in any form with any member or per¬ 
son that I will aid or be friendly to a measure in 
which he is interested because he will or may be 
inclined to aid one in which I am interested.” 


94 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER XV. 

MINNEAPOLIS AND THE GAS TRUST. , 

The so-called “Eminent Domain” bill furnished one of 
the best tests of the session of the temper of the legisla¬ 
ture on issues involving the interests of the people as 
against those of the corporations. 

This bill was brought forward to aid the Minneapolis 
public in a situation, then almost at hand, that affects in 
a most vital way the future relations between the Minne¬ 
apolis Gas Light Company and its patrons. This com¬ 
pany, one of the subsidiary concerns of the great Phila¬ 
delphia Gas Trust, is operating under a franchise granted 
in 1870, and continuing forty years. The grant provides 
that at the expiration of the forty year term, on February 
24th, 1910, the city shall have the right to purchase the 
company’s property; and, on its failure to do so, that the 
franchise shall continue twenty years longer, under the 
same terms as named in the original contract. 

The city had no legal means of securing the money with 
which to purchase the property, and in the absence of this 
was in no position to deal with the situation advantage¬ 
ously for the public interests. The advantage was all in 
favor of the company. The city seemingly was in a des¬ 
perate plight, with no recourse other than to accept any 
terms that the company might make. Legislation, giving 
the city more adequate power to meet the situation was 
an absolute necessity, and the only hope left. 

With this worthy purpose in view. Senator J. T. El- 
well introduced and championed S. F. No. 308, a bill 
authorizing cities of more than 50,000 population “to ac- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 95 


quire lighting and water plants and property therefor by 
exercise of eminent domain.” The bill was referred to the 
Tri-County delegation, the chairman of which was that 
crafty champion of the Gas Trust, Senator J, F. Calhoun. 
This fact explains why it was that the real fight on this 
important measure took place in the House instead of the 
Senate. 

The Elwell bill was introduced in the Senate February 
2nd. For more than two months Senator Calhoun was 
able to sit on the lid and hold this measure in his com¬ 
mittee, which was made up of all the Senate members 
from the three large counties. No pressure or influence 
availed to bring the bill from that committee until it be¬ 
came apparent that the Senate would be forced to go on 
record on a similar measure introduced by C. L. Sawyer 
in the House. Then Calhoun permitted the Elwell bill to 
come from the Tri-County delegation. This was on April 
15th, too late in the session to get it through both 
branches, with business badly congested and reform meas¬ 
ures handicapped by a hostile organization and interpre¬ 
tation of the rules. This situation furnishes a striking 
illustration of the power for evil of the standing committee 
in legislation. 

The arbitrary attitude of Calhoun and his committee 
had, before this, convinced the friends of the measure that 
the Elwell bill could never become a law, and, on March 
29th, they started a similar bill through the House, with 
C. L. Sawyer in charge. Mindful of the experience of the 
bill in the Senate, they did not allow the Sawyer measure 
to go to the Tri-County delegation in the House. There 
it would surely have encountered just as faithful a friend 
of the Gas Trust as Senator Calhoun, in the person of 
Representative John G. Lennon, chairman of that com¬ 
mittee. 

In order to keep the bill out of Lennon’s clutches, Saw-' 
yer, in introducing it, moved that it be laid on the table. On 
the following day, L. H, Johnson moved that it be placed 
on general orders. Lennon promptly offered a substitute 


96 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


motion that it be referred to the Tri-County delegation. 
The Johnson motion carried, and the bill went to general 
orders, and in this way escaped the Lennon committee and 
the sure fate that awaited it. 

On April 3rd Sawyer moved that the bill be taken from 
general orders and placed at the head of special orders. 
At this point Frank T. White came to the rescue of the 
city friends of the gas company by moving the previous 
question, thus shutting off all debate on the merits of the 
bill. A full and free discussion of the question would 
have enlisted the support of certain country members who 
had had no opportunity to learn the real significance of 
the bill. Sawyer’s motion carried, 67 to 43, but it was 
declared lost, the Speaker ruling that it required a two- 
thirds vote to advance a bill out of its regular order. The 
bill remained on general orders. 

The vote on the Sawyer motion should be studied care¬ 
fully, particularly by Minneapolis voters, as it furnishes 
the only real test of the attitude of their representatives 
on this bill. The vote on the final passage of the measure, 
both in House and Senate, does not disclose its enemies, 
for, after failing to kill the bill ii> committee and to block 
it by sharp parliamentary practice, they saved their records 
by standing with the members responsible for its enact¬ 
ment. 

The vote on the Sawyer motion to advance the bill to 
the head of special orders was as follows, the names of 
Minneapolis members being in black faced type, those 
voting “no” standing for the Gas Trust: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: Adams, An¬ 
derson, Bendizen. Bicknell, Bjorge, Borgen, Brown, Buck, 
Burnquist, Campbell, Carlson, Conley, Davies, Dorsey, 
Dower, Duea, Emmel, Gartside, Graham, Handlan, Haug- 
land. Hinds, Holmberg, Holton, Horton, J. N. Johnson, J. 
T. Johnson, L. H. Johnson, Kling, Kneeland, Lee, Lobeck, 
McMartin, Melby, Mork, Murphy, Nagel, O. B. Nelson, 
Noble, O’Brien, Opsahl, Perry, Peterson, Pfaender, H. A. 
Putnam, Rines, Rosenwald, Rustad, Sahler, Sampson, 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 97 


Saugstad, Sawyer, Spence, Spooner, Snlerud, Sullivan, 
Swenson, Virtue, Wallace, Ware, Washburn, Welter, Wes- 
cott, Wohlhuter, C. J. Wright, Zelch, Mr. Speaker—67. 

Those who voted in the negative were: Allen, Austin, 
Baldwin, Brady, Carey, Carey, Christensen, Congdon, 
Conroy, Dalzell, Davis, Denzer, Ferguson, Friedman, 
Gates, Goodspeed, Grant, Greene, Henry, Herzberg, Kelly, 
Krause, Lende, Lennon, MacKenzie, McGarry McNeil, H. 
Nelson, Nimocks, Nolan, Nye, Phillips, W. H. Putnam, 
Rodenberg, Rowe, Selb, Sikorski, Stone, Suart, Webb, 
Wells, White, F. B. Wright —43. 

On April 13th an attempt was made to kill the bill from 
a sutble and unexpected source. One of the country 
members. Representative Ole Peterson, of Nicollet coun¬ 
ty, moved to take the Sawyer bill from general orders. 
Only a few more than a quorum were in the House cham¬ 
ber at that time, and the measure certainly would have 
been defeated. But its friends were alert and watchful, 
and they succeeded in voting down the Peterson motion. 

Three da3’-s later, under more favorable conditions. 
Sawyer moved that the bill be taken from general orders 
and placed on its final passage. Lennon raised the point 
of order that it required a two-thirds vote to advance the 
bill. Speaker Rockne ruled with Sawyer, and the latter’s 
motion carried. The fight ended right there. The bill 
was then placed upon its final passage, and passed unani¬ 
mously, 84 to 0. Some of the enemies of the measure 
sought shelter by voting for it, others by not voting at all. 
None dared go on record against it. 

The Sawyer bill then went to the Senate, where it was 
immediately placed on general orders, on motion of Sen¬ 
ator Wilson. In this manner it escaped Calhoun’s com¬ 
mittee. The bill passed the Senate April 20th by a vote 
of 43 to 0. 


98 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER XVI. 

SUPPLIES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Political plunder of all kinds abounds in the Minnesota 
legislature. Two kinds will be briefly considered in this 
chapter—(1) that which relates to the purchase of legis¬ 
lative supplies and (2) the employment of assistants for 
the session. 

The first form I investigated thoroughly at the close of 
the 1907 session. The result of that inquiry is partly set 
forth in the following extract from a newspaper article 
written then, and reproduced here because it suggests the 
same general conditions that prevailed in the last legisla¬ 
ture: 

Not long ago a gentleman in a position to know 
informed me that, speaking purely from a financial 
point of view, he would prefer the position of chief 
clerk to any other office in the state of Minnesota. 
When pressed for a reason, he would only smile 
and say, “He purchases all the House Supplies.” 
Following out this suggestion the records disclose 
some very interesting omissions. 

“On the first day of the 1907 session Represent¬ 
ative Zelch introduced the following resolution, 
which was adopted unanimously: 

“Resolved, that the chief clerk be and is here¬ 
by instructed to purchase such supplies as are 
necessary for expediting the business of the House. 

“Also to prepare a small pocket manual, contain 
ing a list of the members, with addresses, perma- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 99 

nent and local, the Rules of the House, and stand¬ 
ing committees (when appointed and announced), 
the sub-committees and so forth, all to be con¬ 
veniently indexed, together with such other infor¬ 
mation as he may deem to be of value to the mem¬ 
bers of the House.” 

This resolution constituted the authority by which 
the chief clerk purchased supplies. No one will 
dispute that it was ample. But it proved to be a 
wide-open, unrestricted sort of authority. It gave 
the chief clerk unlimited power to buy goods and 
pay bills, with no committee or person, except pos¬ 
sibly the speaker, to act as a check upon him. Un¬ 
der this scheme the chief clerk ordered supplies and 
filled out vouchers in payment, these being signed 
also by the speaker. These vouchers went to the 
office of the state auditor, where they were filed and 
exchanged for warrants upon the state treasurer. 
No committee ever audited these expenses, and no 
itemized statement of supplies purchased was ever 
presented to the House. So far as I have been able 
to ascertain, no person excepting himself ever saw 
the bills which were paid by the chief clerk. The 
matter of “supplies” seems to have been left en¬ 
tirely to him. He contracted for supplies and paid 
the bills, when and what he pleased. 

The vouchers in the auditor’s office tell a tale, if 
not of graft, at least of gross extravagance. The de¬ 


tails of certain vouchers follow: 

No. For what given. Amount. 

16. Supplies by secretary of state..$1,009.50 

17. Envelopes . 28.00 

18. Supplies . 625.55 

26. Supplies ..^. 383.15 

30. Supplies . 339.70 

46. Supplies by secretary of state. 309.75 

47. Supplies . 559.33 

49. Supplies . 1,808.78 










0 


100 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


79. Supplies . 971.61 

114. Supplies . 42.00 

130. Supplies . 205.45 

137. Supplies . 48.65 

178. Supplies .. 40.70 


These items do not include all the expenditures 
for supplies and other legislative expenses, but they 
are sufficient to show something of the goodness of 
the chief clerk, if not to himself, at least to cer¬ 
tain individuals and firms. I do not presume to 
say that there was a commission for the purchasing 
official in these transactions, or a fancy price for the 
firms selling ihe suplies. But one thing seems cer¬ 
tain: that while the average spent for supplies for 
each of the 119 House members amounts to about 
sixty dollars, the supplies, actually received by the 
average member should not have cost to exceed 
twenty-five dollars. The original supply of station¬ 
ery, pens, pencils, ink, knives, corkscrews, binders, 
and so forth, ordered by the secretary of state and 
paid for by voucher No. 16, amounted to only a 
little over eight dollars per member. After that 
the supplies consisted largely of stationery, yet the 
average cost for each member crept up to sixty 
dollars. Not all the members received the same 
consideration in the matter of supplies. Some, 
notably those who were most active and consistent 
in “the combination,” received a larger share of 
stationery and supplies. Favoritism was shown, 
yet it is hardly possible that the pets of the admin¬ 
istration powers could have received enough to 
make the total average cost legitimately reach so 
high a figure. 

It would be manifestly unfair to suggest ex¬ 
travagance on the part of the chief clerk as pur¬ 
chasing agent of the House and not imply the same 
thing concerning the secretary of the Senate, inas¬ 
much as the same conditions obtain. Samuel A. 







The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 101 

Langum filled that office during the 1907 session. 
He had that same unquestioned, unrestrained au¬ 
thority in purchasing “supplies,” and he used his 
power in much the same way. On the whole, the 
average amount paid out for each senator was about 
the same as for each representative, between fifty- 
five and sixty dollars. 

It was very necessary to “the combination” that 
the chief clerk of the House and the secretary of 
the Senate should be men in sympathy with their 
aims and purposes. At the beginning of the 1907 
session, Carroll Wells, the young son of Represent¬ 
ative R. J. Wells, was appointed “sergeant of the 
Speaker’s room” at a salary of five dollars a day. 
Early in February this youth was taken ill; but his 
pay did not cease. The boy’s father, one of the 
leaders of the combination, signed the son’s name 
on the payroll and drew the salary during his ab¬ 
sence. Such things could not occur without the 
knowledge and sanction of the speaker and chief 
clerk. 

The position of “sergeant of the speaker’s room” 
was created and filled by “Bob Wells’ boy,” not be¬ 
cause of any necessity for such an office, but simply 
because it afforded the speaker an opportunity to 
pay a political debt and do a substantial favor to 
the Breckenridge man. Proof of this is supplied in 
the fact that no one was appointed to take his place 
during the several weeks that Carroll Wells was 
absent. The real “doorkeeper” of the speaker’s 
room was Sherman S. Smith, who received $7.50 a 
day; but the duties of the position enabled him to 
find plenty of time to attend to his cigar stand in 
the postoffice lobby and also to collaborate with 
Tony Manley and Col. Wilkinson, the railroad lob¬ 
byists, and Messrs. Selb and Kelly, the lobbyists 
of the liquor interests. 

I have not made as careful an investigation of the “pay- 


102 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


roll” of the 1909 session as at the previous session. Nor 
have I looked into the purchase of supplies as thorough¬ 
ly. But the suggestions in the article on that phase of 
the 1907 legislature quoted above are pertinent at this 
time, because this business was done in the same un¬ 
businesslike way at the last session. 

THE THIRD HOUSE. 

The employees for the session collectively are known as 
“the third House.” They include clerks of all kinds, 
stenographers, pages, door keepers, sergeants of various 
titles, janitors, etc. They are unnecessarily numerous 
because they represent a very important part of the po¬ 
litical machinery of members. Just as a congressman 
builds up a machine of postmasters, so do members of 
the legislature hold the allegiance of their lesser political 
helpers by bestowing upon them these positions. This 
fact also explains in large part why it is practically im¬ 
possible to eliminate a lot of needless expense by reduc¬ 
ing the employees to a number commensurate with the 
work to be done. 

It would not be so deplorable a situation if the pool and 
the politicians did not control most of the appointments 
and place in the more important positions men and wo¬ 
men who can be used for improper legislative purposes. 
Instances have been known where crooked clerks have 
changed bills. In the 1907 session the reciprocal demur¬ 
rage bill was made worthless in this way, and it had to 
be corrected and repassed twice. And nothing was done 
to punish the guilty parties. 

A rather extreme example is supplied in the case of 
H. E. Samuelson, who drew five dollars a day during the 
last two sessions as “sergeant of the press gallery.” There 
was no press gallery, and Mr. Samuelson did no work of 
any kind in connection with that position, except to draw 
his salary. He was the regular political reporter of the 
St. Paul Pioneer Press and covered the House for that 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 103 


paper. I think it is only fair to infer that he was given 
about one thousand dollars of the people’s money to 
color his legislative correspondence in the interest of the 
combination to whom he owed the subsidization. Per¬ 
haps this incident may also be used to explain why the 
public rarely obtains any very damaging reports of the 
acts and character of the legislature. 

Kerry E. Conley, 4th District, Rochester, attempted to 
reform this “third House” evil in two bills. Both were 
killed in committee. In his H. F. No. 1020 he proposed 
to replace the “cloak room keeper” with a locker for each 
member. This would have improved the service, made 
the property of members more secure, and at the same 
time saved the state $1,350.00 each session. But the 
House was not interested in securing better service and 
greater safety and economy for the state,—they preferred 
the political plunder,—and Mr. Conley was not able to 
get H. F. No. 1020 out of its committee with a favorable 
report. 

It was the same with his other bill, H. F. No. 1098, 
which limited the list of employees to the necessary num¬ 
ber. This measure would have saved the state $11,609.50 
each session. 

Representatives Sawyer, Spooner, and Rosenwald united 
in three attempts to accomplish a similar saving of money 
now thrown away on unnecessary employees. Two were 
in the form of bills, H. F. No. 972 and H. F. No. 1150. 
Both were killed in committee. Their third effort was a 
resolution embodying what they had vainly tried to get 
before the House in their bills. F. B. Wright blocked 
the resolution and it never came to a vote. 


104 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER XVII. 

A FEW FUNDAMENTAL REFORMS. 

Before the Minnesota Legislature will be in a position 
to secure needed reforms for the benefit of the people 
it must first make some fundamental changes in its meth¬ 
ods of legislation. The conditions that this story of the 
session reveal are the logical and inevitable result of the 
rules and the system under which laws are made. 

1. Speaker and Lieutenant-Governor. —It would aid ma¬ 
terially in removing the Cannonistic conditions in the 
legislature and make both House and Senate more delib¬ 
erative bodies if the state constitution were changed by 
this provision: 

The presiding officers of both branches of the legisla¬ 
ture shall not hold any other office, and shall be chosen 
by their respective houses. They shall not appoint stand¬ 
ing committees, and shall have no voice or vote on legis¬ 
lative business. They shall preside over the sessions of 
the body by which they are'chosen, shall hold office 
during its pleasure, and shall have such powers as may 
be conferred upon them by their respective houses not 
contrary to the provisions of this article. 

2. Standing Committees. —The evils due to the present 
system which makes the standing committee the all-im¬ 
portant and almost all-powerful factor in legislation would 
be largely eliminated if every standing committee were 
required: 

(a) To report each bill or resolution back to the 
House or Senate within fifteen days after receiving it. 

(b) To keep a public record of roll calls, amendments 
and all other actions in committee. 

3. .^Majority Rule. —The rules should be changed wher¬ 
ever necessary to give a majority control over any legis¬ 
lation question or measure at all times. 

4. Limit Time for Introduction of Bills.—No bill should 
be introduced after the first fifteen days of the session, 
except in the case of emergency or natural calamity. At 
present bills may be introduced up to twenty days of 
final adjournment, and after that with the permission of 
the Governor, which is rarely withheld. Much of the 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 105 


hasty, crude and unconsidered legislation now a part of 
every session would be impossible if this rule were in 
force. It would also make it very difficult to rush through 
giant woodchucks like the Rodenberg law during the clos¬ 
ing days of the session. 

A Few Needed Reform Laws. 

After reforming its own rules and established customs 
the legislature should give the people of the state: 

1. The Initiative and Referendum, which is the most 
vital and fundamental reform of all. 

2. Extension of the Direct Primary Election Law to 
all state officers and United States Senators. 

3. The election of United States Senators Directly by 
the People. 

4. Railroad Regulation that would prevent discrimina¬ 
tions in freight rates, both among individuals and among 
committees. 

5. County Option, which would naturally lessen the 
brewery influence in politics and give to a majority of the 
people in each county the right to decide whether or not 
saloons should exist in their county. 

6. A Tonnage Tax on Iron Ore. 

7. Such rights of local self-government to all muni¬ 
cipalities in the state, particularly the large cities, as 
will enable them to regulate or own all their public utili¬ 
ties. 


106 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


CHAPTER XVIIL 

A CHARACTERIZATION OF MEMBERS. 

Those contests in the House which seem to furnish 
the best test of whether members were representing the 
people or the corporations are: (1) the Haugland amend¬ 
ment to reform the rules; (2) direct legislation; and, (3) 
county option. The tonnage tax bill is not a good test 
because public opinion forced certain representatives, both 
for and against the bill, to take the stand they did. 
Neither is the J. N, Johnson stock regulation bill a fair 
test. The pool appeared to assist rather than oppose 
this measure in the House, thinking that its passage would 
help defeat the tonnage tax, as has been explained, and 
knowing that it would be killed in the Senate. A su¬ 
preme test of Minneapolis members is shown by their 
attitude on the Nolan street railway bill, and the Saw¬ 
yer Eminent Domain bill designed to help the city in 
its fight with the Gas Trust. 

MINNEAPOLIS MEMBERS. 

Hugh N. Allen, 39th District.— Thorough reactionary; 
invariably with the pool and against the public interests; 
dodged vote on rules reform and on Nolan’s street rail- 
wa}-- bill; voted against the interests of his own city in 
the fight on the Eminent Domain bill. There are no 
redeeming features in his record. 

W. A. Campbell, 42nd District. —Active insurgent leader; 
for reform of rules and direct legislation; always against 
the pool; took a prominent part in fights against Nolan 
street railway bill and the Gas Trust; author of Em¬ 
ployers’ Liability Commission act and the law creating a 
Woman’s Labor Bureau; also secured the enactment of 
four other labor laws; introduced twenty-four bills, all 
in the public interest, among them being H. F. 893, ex¬ 
tending the primary to state officers; one of the two 
Minneapolis members to vote for the tonnage tax; active 
worker for county option and all anti-saloon measures. 
One of the strongest of the new members; and always 
alert and fearless in behalf of the people. 

J. F. Conroy, 39th District. —Another reactionary; 
against rules reform; dodged vote on direct legislation; 


1 HE Minnesota Legislature of 1909 107 


for Nolan street railway bill; voted with the Gas Trust 
on the Sawyer Eminent Domain bill; invariably with the 
pool; small capacity for public business. 

John B. Goodspeed, 42nd District. —One of the new 
members who started wrong and maintained a consistent 
opposition to the people’s interest throughout the ses¬ 
sion; stood for Nolan’s street railway bill and against 
Sawyer’s gas measure. A mere creature of the machine. 

L. H. Johnson, 43rd District. —Reactionary leader; did 
not vote on rules reform; repudiated written pre-elec¬ 
tion promise to support direct legislation; supported No¬ 
lan street railway bill until public opinion frightened him 
into opposing it; was for Sawyer gas bill; stood with the 
pool on almost every important issue. Johnson’s legis¬ 
lative influence was political, rather than patriotic. 

Thos. Kneeland, 41st District. —General record good, ex¬ 
cept on liquor issues; did not vote on rules reform; was 
for district legislation and the Sawyer gas bill; did ex¬ 
cellent work in opposition to the Nolan street railway 
bill; stood for the saloon program. 

John G. Lennon, 41st District. —Whole record conspicu- 
uously bad; reactionary leader; active and open in his op¬ 
position to public interest; led fight against rules reform; 
was against direct legislation; was for the Nolan street 
railway bill and against the Sawyer gas bill; was chair¬ 
man of tri-county delegation, and had large influence 
which he used regularly to advance the program of the 
special interests. Lennon was an inveterate talker, and 
took up more time with purposeless oratory than any 
other five members. 

Alex McNeil, 44th District. —Was against rules reform; 
stood for direct legislation: one of .two Minneapolis mem¬ 
bers to vote for tonnage tax; opposed to Nolan’s street 
railway bill, but voted for the Gas Trust on the Sawyer 
bill. 

F. E. Nimocks, 40th District. —A scheming political ma¬ 
nipulator and one of the leaders of the pool interests; 
was against rules reform; repudiated his promise to Min¬ 
nesota Federation of Labor to support direct legislation; 
opposed the interests of his city by supporting the Nolan 
street railway bill and standing for the Gas Trust on 
the Sawyer bill. Nimock’s legislative work was notori¬ 
ously bad, and his influence pernicious and dangerous. 

Geo. M. Nye, 44th District.— One of the youngest of 
the new members; easy prey for the managers of the pool; 
voted with the special interests, except on direct legisla¬ 
tion and the "Nolan street railway bill; stood for the 
Gas Trust on the Sawyer bill. 


108 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


E. F. Sahler, 38th District. —Voted against rules reforrn; 
for direct legislation; was against the Nolan street rail¬ 
way bill and for the Sawyer Eminent Domain measure. 

C. L. Sawyer, 41st District. —Insurgent leader; did not 
vote on rules reform; stood for direct legislation; was op¬ 
posed to the pool, except on the tonnage tax; author of 
the Eminent Domain act which was fought so vigorously 
by the Gas Trust; was against Nolan street railway bill; 
author of Teachers’ Pension Fund act. Sawyer did ex¬ 
cellent service for the people throughout the session. 

M. J. Sullivan, 38th District. —Voted against rules re¬ 
form; for direct legislation; against Nolan street railway 
bill; stood for the Sawyer gas bill; generally with the 
pool on other important issues. 

Carl L. Wallace, 43rd District. —Did not vote on rules 
reform; repudiated his promise to support direct legisla¬ 
tion; voted against Nolan street railway bill; was for 
the Sawyer gas bill; voted for the J. N. Johnson stock 
regulation measure and for county option; one of the 
authors of the public utilities commission bill. 

W. D. Washburn, Jr., 41st District. —Voted for rules 
reform; opposed to direct legislation; stood for Minne¬ 
apolis on both street railway and gas bills; was for 
the J. N. Johnson stock regulation measure; author of a 
bill for a legislative reference bureau; took a leading part 
in the defeat of the Nolan street railway bill by intro¬ 
ducing an honest bill on the subject. Washburn was 
an earnest, energetic legislator, who took his work seri¬ 
ously and kept clear of all kinds of political barter and 
plunder. 

F. B. Wright, 40th District. —Reactionary; against rules 
reform and direct legislation; against the Nolan street 
railway bill; stood for the Gas Trust on the Sawyer bill; 
invariably with the pool; record consistently bad. 

ST. PAUL MEMBERS. 

T. J. Brady, 34th District. —Reactionary leader; kept 
democratic members lined up for the pool; against re¬ 
form of rules; repudiated both his party platform promise 
and his written pledge to the Minnesota Federation of 
Labor to support direct legislation; author of H. F. 373, 
the members’ salary bill; introduced a bill repealing the 
anti-pass law. Brady displayed little ability, but made 
up for this by unceasing activity for the corporations and 
politicians. 

J. A. A. Burnquist, 33rd District. —Insurgent leader; 
for reform of rules and direct legislation; "opposed the 
pool consistently; took a leading part in the fight against 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 109 


the Nolan street railway bill; for the Sawyer anti-gas 
trust bill; introduced sixteen bills, among them one pro¬ 
viding for a legislative reference library, after the Wis¬ 
consin idea. Burnquist was the only insurgent in the 
Ramsey county house delegation, a position that re¬ 
quired rare courage and conviction. He was forced to 
fight all his St. Paul colleagues on almost every impor¬ 
tant measure. As a young man and a new member he 
made an enviable record. 

O. T. Christenson, 35th District. —Reactionary; against 
rules reform; repudiated his written promise to support 
direct legislation; with the pool on all issues; introduced 
twenty-nine bills, most of them of a political nature; 
was author of bill placing street railways under control 
of Railroad and Warehouse Commission; fought for No¬ 
lan street railway bill. 

T. J. Greene, 34th District. —Against rules reform; for 
direct legislation; opposed to Nolan street railway bill; 
generally supported the pool; author of the bill legalizing 
prize fights. 

James Handlan, 34th District. —Against reform of rules; 
repudiated both the democratic party platform and his 
written promise to support direct legislation; stood with 
the pool. 

J. D. O’Brien, 36th District. —Reactionary; voted against 
reform of rules; voted against direct legislation; was op¬ 
posed to the Nolan street railway bill; one of the pool’s 
reliables; introduced and championed bill extending the 
time of closing saloons from 11 o’clock until midnight. 

E. G. Perry, 37th District. —Voted against reform rules; 
repudiated his promise to support direct legislation; stood 
with the pool except on the J. N. Johnson stock regula¬ 
tion bill. 

Alwin Rowe, 37th District. —Reactionary; against rules 
reform; repudiated his written promise to the Minne¬ 
sota Federation of Labor to support direct legislation; 
with the pool throughout; was chairman of the Rarnsey 
county delegation; introduced ten bills, three of which 
related to his own business of market gardening. 

Geo. W. Rodenberg, 33rd District.— Reactionary leader; 
opposed to rules reform; repudiated his written promise 
to support direct legislation; was author of Rodenberg 
law of the 1907 session, which is discussed in chapter on 
the Railroad Ring. 

J. F. Selb, 35th District. —Thoroughgoing reactionary; 
House floor leader for the brewery interests; against re¬ 
form of rules; repudiated his written promise to support 
direct legislation; stood with the pool on every issue; 


110 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


introduced fourteen bills, most of which had a political 
motive. No member served the interests more consist¬ 
ently than Selb. 

C. E. Stone, 36th District. —Voted against reform of 
rules; was opposed to direct legislation; stood with the 
pool; author of H. F. 488 authorizing bonds for public 
playgrounds. 

THE DULUTH DELEGATION. 

Jos. Austin, 49th District. —One of the Duluth delega¬ 
tion discussed in the chapter on The Battle for a Tonnage 
Tax; with the pool on everything. Austin indicated a 
disposition to rebel against the condition which compelled 
him and all other St. Louis county members to subordinate 
himself to the steel trust and its legislative interests. 

Anton Borgen, 50th District. —Voted for rules reform, 
but otherwise stood with his St. Louis county colleagues 
and the pool; introduced no bills. 

Geo. W. Buck, 51st District. —Against reform of rules, 
and with the pool throughout the session. 

C. A. Congdon, 51st District. —Leader of the Duluth 
delegation and House manager for the U. S. Steel Com¬ 
pany; with the pool on everything; able lawyer and had 
large influence in the House; introduced fourteen bills, 
eleven of which became laws. 

David Graham, 49th District. —Did not vote on rules 
reform; opposed direct legislation, and stood with the 
pool throughout; introduced only one bill. 

Rich R. Grant, 50th District. —-First lieutenant to Cong¬ 
don, floor leader for the steel trust; opposed rules re¬ 
form and direct legislation; very active and successful 
in getting legislation through; introduced twenty-one 
bills, eleven of which were enacted. 

* He * 

Elmer E. Adams, 59th District, Fergus Falls. —Insurgent 
leader; discussed in chapter on new members and the 
system; was author of the only anti-saloon law enacted, 
which was H. F. No. 99, providing that all buflfet cars on 
which liquor is sold shall pay a license of $50.00; took 
very active interest in temperance legislation, introducing 
several bills in regulation of the liquor traffic, among 
them being H. F. 330, extending local option to cities o^ 
the fourth class; headed special committee to investigate 
school book trust; stood with Haugland in his fight to 
reform the rules; voted for direct legislation and against 
the combination throughout the session. Adams is an 
experienced legislator, and thoroughly appreciates the 
evils of the prevailing methods of making laws. He proved 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 111 


himself one of the most valuable men in the lower body. 

Andrew Anderson, 31st District, Washington County.— 
.From the same district and a protege of John Zelch; voted 
for direct legislation, but otherwise stood with the pool; 
against reform of rules, and for all the special interest pro¬ 
gram. 

John Baldwin, 14th District, Jackson. —Was for reform 
of rules, but otherwise voted with the pool, except on 
the tonnage tax; one of the democrats who repudiated 
his party platform pledge to support direct legislation. 
Baldwin was a new member and not very active. 

C. M. Bendixen, 19th District, Redwood County. —In¬ 
surgent leader; voted for reform of rules and direct legis¬ 
lation; against the pool throughout; introduced thirteen 
bills, two of which became laws, one relating to the state 
canvassing board, and the other asserting the state’s right 
to minerals under lakes; introduced and championed a 
bill abolishing capital punishment. Bendixen was always 
a thorn in the side of the combination. He stood ably 
and fearlessly for the public interest on every occasion. 

W. C. Bicknell, 57th District, Morris. —Insurgent leader; 
for reform of rules; voted for direct legislation in Ju¬ 
diciary Committee; was against the program of the pool 
from start to finish; introduced twelve bills, among them 
being H. F. 39, which provided for greater publicity in 
the work of the Legislature by making it possible for 
all papers of the state to receive copies of the journals 
and other legislative documents: was author of H. F. 
858, which compels transportation companies to refund to 
shippers the difference in freight charges between the rates 
now in force and those in the commodity rate law of 1907, 
if the courts uphold the statute; took a leading part in the 
fight to retain the State Board of Equalization in the 1907 
session and stood conspicuously for more equitable tax 
legislation. Bicknell is a quiet, determined man and one of 
the strongest reformers in the House. 

H. O. Bjorge, 60th District, Becker County. —Insurgent 
leader; discussed in chapter on Battle for a Tonnage Tax; 
for reform of rules and direct legislation; against the 
pool on every issue except the J. N. Johnson stock regula¬ 
tion bill, which has been previously explained; championed 
two measures taxing foreign corporations; concentrated 
his best effort on the tonnage tax bill. Bjorge was un¬ 
tiring in his efforts for reform and displayed a keen 
appreciation of the evils of the present system. 

L. D. Brown, 48th District, Little Falls. —A new mem¬ 
ber and not very active; did not vote on rules reform; 


112 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


was for direct legislation, but otherwise with the pool, 
except on the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill. 

Hubbard Carey, 6th District, Mower County.—Did not 
vote on rules reform; was opposed to direct legislation; 
did not vote on the J. N. Johnson railroad bill; favored 
the tonnage tax; was against county option, members’ 
salary bill and club bill and repeal of corrupt practices 
act. 

J. A. Carley, 3rd District, Wabasha County.—For re¬ 
form of rules, direct legislation, and the tonnage tax; 
was against county option, club bill, and repeal of cor¬ 
rupt practices act. 

C. J. Carlson, 46th District, Wright County.—Insurgent; 
voted for reform of rules and direct legislation; opposed 
the pool throughout the session. 

Kerry E. Conley, 4th District, Rochester.—Insurgent 
leader; was for reform of rules and direct legislation; stood 
consistently against the pool; introduced eleven bills, 
most of which were important; author of the first bill 
providing for employers’ liability; fathered two bills in 
reference to the public health. His H. F. 1020 and H. F. 
1098 were aimed at the Third House evil discussed in the 
chapter on Supplies and Employees. Conley was a 
new member, but proved himself one of the best men in 
the House. He was always active for greater economy 
and efficiency in public service. 

J. A. Dalzell, 22nd District, Renville County.—Reaction¬ 
ary leader; dodged the vote on rules reform; was opposed 
to direct legislation; as chairman of committee on taxes 
and tax laws he aided the steel trust in the fight against 
the tonnage tax; stood consistently for the pool; voted 
with the Minneapolis public utility corporations in the 
contests on the Nolan street railway bill and the Saw¬ 
yer gas bill. Dalzell was one of the most active politi¬ 
cians in the lower branch. 

Joseph Davies, 13th District, Watonwan County.—Insur¬ 
gent; was for reform of rules and direct legislation; stood 
against the pool throughout the session. 

Andrew Davis, 45th District, Sherburne County.—Was 
against reform of rules and direct legislation. Stood with 
the pool, except on temperance measures. 

G. H. Denzer, 27th District, Le Sueur County.—For rules 
reform; opposed to direct legislation; stood with the pool 
except on the tonnage tax; introduced four bills, two of 
which related to naturopathic practice. 

J. H. Dorsey, 24th District, Glencoe.—Reactionary; voted 
against reform of rules and repudiated both his party 
platform and his written promise to the Minnesota Fed- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 113 


eration of Labor to support direct legislation; stood with 
the pool except on the J. N, Johnson railway bill and the 
tonnage tax; was one of the authors of the public utilities 
commission bill discussed in the chapter on the Street 
Railway’s Legislative Program; introduced thirteen bills, 
niany of them relating to military affairs. Dr. Dorsey 
is discussed in “Jockeying with the 2-cent Fare” in the 
chapter on the Railroad Ring. He had large influence 
and was a very shrewd legislator. 

Wm. Dower, 53rd District, Wadena County.—Was 
against rules reform and direct legislation; stood with 
the pool; introduced three bills, all pertaining to his dis¬ 
trict, none of which were enacted. 

Otis F. Doyle, 47th District, Stearns County.—Reac¬ 
tionary; was opposed to rules reform and direct legisla¬ 
tion; stood with the pool; introduced thirteen bills, two 
of which were enacted. Doyle is discussed in the chapter 
on “New Members and the System.” 

S. B. Duea, 16th District, Rock County.—Was for re¬ 
form of rules and direct legislation; voted for the J.' N. 
Johnson stock regulation bill and the tonnage tax; was 
opposed to county option, Cass Lake Normal, members’ 
salary bill, club bill, and repeal of the corrupt practices 
act. 

Henry Emmel, 54th District, Stearns County.—Against 
rules reform and direct legislation; stood with the pool; 
introduced flve bills, none of which were enacted. 

T. M. Ferguson, 52nd District, Carlton County.—Against 
reform of rules and direct legislation; voted with the 
pool except on the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill 
and county option; introduced ten bills, four of which 
were enacted, one of them relating to an experimental 
farm in Carlton county. 

M. D. Fitzpatrick, 4th District, Olmstead County.— 

Against rules reform; for direct legislation; voted with 
the pool except on the tonnage tax. Fitzpatrick gained 
some attention by changing suddenly his attitude and 
casting the vote which passed the club bill. 


114 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


Joseph Friedman, 54th District, Stearns County. —For 

rules reform; against direct legislation; with the pool ex¬ 
cept on tonnage tax and repeal of corrupt practices act; 
introduced four bills, all pertaining to local appropria¬ 
tions. 

F. E. Gartside, 2nd District, Winona.— Reactionary lead¬ 
er; against rules reform and direct legislation; with the 
pool except on the J. N. Johnson anti-watered stock bill; 
introduced thirteen bills, six of which were enacted, one 
being the Sunday baseball law. 

J. A. Gates, 29th District, Goodhue County. —Voted 
against reform of rules; repudiated his written promise 
to support direct legislation; stood for the temperance 
program, but seemed naturally inclined to stand with the 
pool. Gates was very active and usually reactionary. 

J. O. Haugland, 18th District, Montevideo. —Insurgent 
leader; proved his progressiveness by leading fight for re¬ 
form of rules; stood for direct legislation and against pool 
throughout the session. Haugland was one of the strong¬ 
est men in the House. He has a keen appreciation of 
the existing evils in our legislative system, has good abil¬ 
ity, and is thoroughly loyal to the public interests. 

John C. Henry, 2nd District, Winona. —Against reform 
of rules and direct legislation; stood with the pool ex¬ 
cept on the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill. 

O. K. Herzberg, 11th District, Blue Earth County.— 
Against reform of rules and direct legislation; stood with 
the pool except on the tonnage tax; introduced only one 
bill, which pertained to a local appropriation. 

E. R. Hinds, 53rd District, Hubbard County. —For rules 
reform; against direct legislation; voted with the pool ex¬ 
cept on the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill. 

N. J. Holmberg, 22nd District, Renville County. —In¬ 
surgent leader; for reform of rules; against direct legis¬ 
lation; was very active against the pool throughout the 
session; especially interested in agriculture, State Fair 
and the University; introduced eleven bills, three of 
which were enacted; was the author of two important 
measures establishing the teaching of agriculture in con¬ 
solidated rural schools. Holmberg was one of the most 
alert and dependable of all the House members. 

John Holten, 62nd District, Polk County. —Insurgent; 
for rules reform and direct legislation; was opposed to 
pool throughout the session; author of a bill extending 
the primary election law. Holten worked consistently for 
the public interests. 

Thos. H. Horton, 45th District, Isanti County. —Insur¬ 
gent; against reform of rules; for direct legislation; was 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 115 


opposed to the pool except on the tonnage tax, his neg¬ 
ative vote on that measure being in accord with the senti¬ 
ment of his constituents, 

C. E. Johnson, 55th District, Kandiyohi County. —Insur¬ 
gent leader; for rules reform and direct legislation; was 
opposed to the pool on every issue. Johnson introduced 
few bills himself, but gave assistance to every measure 
that was for the public interests. 

J. N. Johnson, 17th District, Canby. —Insurgent leader; 
for rules reform and direct legislation; opposed the pool 
on every issue; introduced fourteen bills, two of which 
were enacted; proved his progressiveness by introduc¬ 
ing and ably championing three vital reform measures,— 
(1) direct legislation (2) woman’s suffrage (3) the bill to 
prevent watering of stock in railroad securities. Al¬ 
though a new member he made a record of great useful¬ 
ness to the state. 

J. T. Johnson, 59th District, Fergus Falls. —Insurgent; 
for rules reform and direct legislation; opposed the pool; 
voted against the Alderman brewery bill. 

Hans Jorgenson, 11th District, Mankato. —Against re¬ 
form of rules; for direct legislation; stood with the pool 
except on the tonnage tax; introduced seven bills, one of 
them being a bill to provide for the commission form of 
government for cities, 

J. L. Kelly, 11th District, Blue Earth. —Against rules re¬ 
form and direct legislation; voted with the pool except 
on the tonnage tax. 

Elmer A. Kling, 48th District, Little Falls. —Reaction¬ 
ary; against rules reform and direct legislation; stood with 
the pool except on the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill. 
Kling was very active for a new member, but was gener¬ 
ally on the unprogressive and political side of issues. 

J. D. Krause, 25th District, Carver County. —Did not 
vote on rules reform; against direct legislation; stood with 
the pool; introduced eight bills, six of which related to 
animals and hunting. 

Iver J. Lee, 58th District, Glenwood.— Insurgent leader; 
for rules reform and direct legislation; stood consistently 
against the pool. Lee made an excellent record. 

Edward Lende, 56th District, Swift County. —For 
rules reform; against direct legislation; supported the J. 
N. Johnson stock regulation bill and the tonnage tax; 
opposed repeal of corrupt practices act, also county op¬ 
tion. Lende gave good assistance in the fight for a law 
that would give the smaller municipalities better control 
of telephone companies. 


116 The Minnesota Legislature’of 1909 


E. E. Lobeck, 58th District, Alexandria—Insurgent 
leader; strong for rules reform, and took an active part in 
the fight for direct legislation; voted consistently against 
the pool, and was aggressively opposed to all_ special in¬ 
terest legislation; one of the authors of an initiative and 
referendum bill, and championed three measures to im¬ 
prove social evils; author of a state wide prohibition bill. 
Lobeck was a strong and able champion of the people. 

Geo. A. MacKenzie, 21st District, Sibley County.— 
Against rules reform; repudiated his written promise to 
support direct legislation; was with the pool on every 
issue; chairman of the House temperance committee and 
made it his special mission to fight anti-saloon measures; 
was one of the leading advocates of the abolishment of 
capital punishment. 

G. H. Mattson, 63rd District, Roseau County. —For re¬ 
form of rules; repudiated his promise to support direct 
legislation; voted against the J. N. Johnson anti-watered 
stock bill; otherwise he was opposed to the pool. Matt¬ 
son was an insurgent on most issues, and on the whole 
his work was in the public interest. 

P. H. McGarry, 52nd District, Cass County. —Reaction¬ 
ary; voted against reform of rules and direct legislation; 
was generally with the pool. McGarry is discussed in 
chapter on Log Rolling in connection with the Cass Lake 
Normal School bill, of which he had charge in the House. 

John McGrath, 60th District, Clay County. —Insurgent 
leader; for rules reform and direct legislation; took a 
prominent part in the opposition to the pool program. 

Finley McMartin, 7th District, Dodge County. —Against 
rules reform and direct legislation; voted for the tonnage 
tax and county option; was generally opposed to the pool. 

C. K. Melby, 17th District, Lyon County. —Insurgent 
leader; for rules reform and direct legislation; voted con¬ 
sistently against the pool. Melby was always strong for 
the public interest. 

A. L. Mork, 12th District, Faribault County. —For rules 
reform; against direct legislation; voted with the pool ex¬ 
cept on the tonnage tax. 

D. J. Murphy, 10th District, Waseca County. —For rules 
reform; did not vote on direct legislation; was generally 
with pool except on the tonnage tax. 

E. M. Nagel, 46th District, Buffalo County. —Was op¬ 
posed to rules reform and direct legislation; voted for the 
J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill, tonnage tax, county 
option and the Alderman brewery bill; generally opposed 
to the pool; author of one of the anti-cigarette measures. 

Herman Nelson, 15th District, Murray County. —Was 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 117 

for reform of rules; opposed direct legislation; voted for 
the J. N. Johnson stock regulation bill and the tonnage 
tax; voted against repeal of corrupt practices act; was 
opposed to county option, but supported state wide pro¬ 
hibition. 

O. B. Nelson, 1st District, Houston County. —Was for 
reform of rules; opposed to direct legislation; generally 
opposed to the pool. 

F. E. Noble, 9th District, Albert Lea. —Insurgent; for 
rules reform and direct legislation; was opposed to the 
pool throughout the session; author of a measure to ob¬ 
literate party lines in politics. 

W. A. Nolan, 6th District, Grand Meadow. —Reactionary 
leader; voted against rules reform and direct legislation; 
was a conspicuous patron of the pool except on the ton¬ 
nage tax. Nolan was the author of H. F. No. 266, the 
bill discussed in the chapter on “The Street Railway 
Company’s Legislative Program,” and was one of the 
leaders of the republican “steering committee,” which was 
responsible for much of the unstatesmanlike character of 
the session. 

J. J. Opsahl, 61st District, Bemidji. —Insurgent leader; 
stood for reform of rules and direct legislation; was con¬ 
sistently opposed to the pool; one of the leading op¬ 
ponents of the Cass Lake Normal School bill; was very 
active; introduced thirty-one bills, only one of which was 
enacted; worked hard for agricultural instruction at Nor¬ 
mals, High Schools and rural schools, championed several 
measures in the interests of northern Minnesota and the 
conservation of the state’s timber resources. Opsahl was 
one of the most valuable members of the House. 

Jos. Peters, 30th District, Dakota County. —Did not vote 
on rules reform; opposed direct legislation; was for the 
tonnage tax, but otherwise stood with the pool. 

Ole Peterson, 20th District, New Ulm. —Was opposed 
to rules reform and direct legislation; a consistent per¬ 
former for the pool, except on the J. N. Johnson stock 
regulation bill and the tonnage tax; championed a bill 
repealing the primary election law, 

Albert Pfaender, 19th District, New Ulm. —Was for 
rules reform; repudiated both his party platform and his 
written promise to support direct legislation; was with 
the pool except on the tonnage tax. 

J. R. Phillips, 28th District, Faribault. —Was opposed to 
rules reform; for direct legislation; voted with the pool 
except on tonnage tax. 

H. A. Putnam, 59th District, Otter Tail County. —Insur¬ 
gent leader; was for rules reform and direct legislation; 


118 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


was opposed to the pool on every issue; introduced two 
bills, one relating to leases of state lands, and the other 
a local appropriation bill, both of which were enacted. 
Putman was a new member and was always for the public 
interest. 

W. H. Putnam, 29th District, Red Wing. —Opposed to 
rules reform; for direct legislation; voted against the pool 
except on the tonnage tax; was one of the authors of the 
public utilities commission bill; as chairman of the^ ap¬ 
propriations committee he championed the omnibus bill; 
introduced twenty-one bills, ten of which were enacted. 

Henry Rines, 32nd District, Kanebec County. —Insur¬ 
gent; was chairman of committee on rules and opposed 
rules reform; voted against direct legislation; generally 
opposed to the pool; author of the law annulling the 
provision for making mineral leases on state lands, one 
of the best measures passed at the 1907 session; author 
of H. F. 497, a bill relating to minerals and water power 
on state lands. Rines did not meet his opportunity to 
reform the methods of legislation, but in other respects 
did some excellent work in the public interest. 

Donald Robertson, 63rd District, Marshall County.— 
Opposed to rules reform and direct legislation; voted for 
the tonnage tax and county option; generally opposed to 
the pool. 

A. J. Rockne, 29th District, Zumbrota. —Speaker of the 
House; discussed in chapter on “Speakership” and “How 
House was Organized.” Voted against rules reform; for 
direct legislation; was opposed to the tonnage tax and 
county option; supported the J. N. Johnson stock regula¬ 
tion bill, which was practically the same measure intro¬ 
duced and championed by himself in the 1907 session. 

J. F. Rosenwald, 18th District, Lac Qui Parle County.— 
Insurgent leader; for reform of rules and direct legisla¬ 
tion; was opposed to the pool; active in the fight for the 
tonnage tax; attempted to reform the third House evil 
discussed in chapter on “Supplies and Employees.” 

John Rustad, 5th District, Fillrnore County. —Insurgent; 
for rules reform and direct legislation; always opposed 
to the pool. Rustad was one of the new members who 
took the right road at the start. 

John A. Sampson, 23rd District, Meeker County. —Insur¬ 
gent; voted for reform of rules and direct legislation; 
stood for the public interests on every issue. 

John Saugstad, 62nd District, Polk County. —Insurgent 
leader; for reform of rules and direct legislation; intro¬ 
duced and championed a bill extending the primary elec¬ 
tion law to state officers; one of the strongest and most 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 119 


active advocates of county option. Saugstad worked for 
greater publicity in connection with the legislative rec¬ 
ords and was always one of the most progressive cham¬ 
pions of the public interests. 

•Theodore Sikorski, 2nd District, Winona. —Against rules 
reform and direct legislation; was with the pool except 
on the tonnage tax. 

Lewis C. Spooner, 5th District, Morris County. —Op¬ 
posed to rules reform, and repudiated his written promise 
to support direct legislation; voted for the J. N. John¬ 
son stock regulation bill, tonnage tax and county op¬ 
tion; joined actively in the fight for greater economy and 
efficiency in the matter of legislative employees; was au¬ 
thor of an anti-cigarette law, and also secured the passage 
of bills for a new State Prison and enlargement of the 
machinery manufacturing plant at the penitentiary. 

John Spence, 27th District, Le Sueur County. —Op¬ 
posed rules reform; repudiated both his party platform 
and written promise to support direct legislation; stood 
with the pool; was the only House member who did not 
vote on tonnage tax. 

D. A. Stuart, 14th District, Cottonwood County. —Re¬ 
actionary leader; for rules reform; opposed to direct leg¬ 
islation; stood with the pool, even voting against the 
tonnage tax. Stuart was one of the new members who 
allied himself actively with the combination. 

C. L. Sullerud, 61st District, Norman County. —Insur¬ 
gent; for rules reform and'direct legislation; was opposed 
to the pool on everything. 

C. J. Swendsen, 13th District, Watonwan. —Insurgent 
leader; opposed the pool on every bill that came before 
the session; introduced but few bills himself; author of 
H. F. 103, which provides for separation of land from 
villages; secured the passage also of laws giving aid to 
public school libraries and providing for the inspection 
of dairies; also of H. F. No. 264, which provides for an 
examination of the public accounts in cities of less than 
10,000. Swendsen was an earnest and active advocate of 
progressive and equitable legislation of every kind. 

Burdett Thayer, 5th District, Fillmore County. —Re¬ 
actionary leader; opposed to rules reform; supported direct 
legislation; voted for the tonnage tax, but otherwise stood 
with the pool; took a leading part in the last two sessions 
in the fight against bills aimed at watered stock in rail¬ 
road securities. 

Leonard Virtue, 8th District, Steele County. —Opposed 
rules reform; did not vote on direct legislation; opposed 


120 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


the J. N. Johnson bill and tonnage tax; generally stood 
with the pool. 

A. K. Ware, 28th District, Northfield. —Insurgent leader; 
opposed rules reform; voted for direct legislation; was 
against the pool on every bill; introduced and championed 
some of the most progressive measures; was author of 
bills for county option, tonnage tax on iron ore, to pro¬ 
hibit brewers owing saloon buildings, woman’s suffrage, 
extension of primary law to state officers, and a bill corn- 
pelling large newspapers to publish the names of their 
stockholders. 

H. P. Webb, 32nd District, Pine County. —Opposed rules 
reform and direct legislation; voted for the J. N.^ John¬ 
son stock regulation bill, but otherwise stood with the 
pool. Did not vote on county option, repeal of corrupt 
practices act, on state wide prohibition. 

R. J. Wells, 60th District, Breckenridge County. —Re¬ 
actionary leader; did not vote on rules reform; opposed 
direct legislation; active and consistent performer for the 
pool except on the tonnage tax; is discussed in the chap¬ 
ters on “The Speakership,” “The Battle for a Tonnage 
Tax,” and “Supplies and Employees.” Wells was one of 
the most unprogressive politicians in the House. 

P. J. Welter, 26th District, Scott County. —Voted against 
rules reform; did not vote on direct legislation; stood 
with the pool except on the J. N. Johnson stock regula¬ 
tion bill. 

W. H. Westcott, 30th District, Dakota County. —Did 
not vote on rules reform, nor direct legislation; stood 
with the pool except on the tonnage tax. 

Frank T. White, 45th District, Elk River. —Reactionary 
leader; did not not vote on rules reform; repudiated his 
written promise to support direct legislation; voted con¬ 
sistently with the pool; was House champion of Aider- 
man brewery bill. White belongs to the old discredited 
political school and is thoroughly unprogressive. 

Wm. Wohlhuter, 9th District, Albert Lea. —Against 
rules reform and direct legislation; stood with the pool 
except on tonnage tax. 

C. J. Wright, 59th District, Fergus Falls. —Insurgent 
leader; for rules reform and direct legislation; was con¬ 
sistently oposed to the pool. Wright was one of the 
new members who stood for the people throughout the 
session. 

John Zelch, 31st District, Washington County. —Reac¬ 
tionary leader; opposed to rules reform and direct legis¬ 
lation; one of the leaders in the combination that reg 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 121 


ularly opposed the public interests. Zelch is discussed 
in chapter on “New Members and the System.” 

THE SENATE. 

Some of the most important measures in the Senate 
were not voted upon out in the open, but were disposed 
cf in standing committees. Because of the skilled manipu¬ 
lation of the Senate combine, such bills as county option, 
Initiative and Referendum, and the J. N. Johnson stock 
regulation bill were chloroformed in committees, and 
members were thereby saved from going on record. Prac- 
ticularly all of the senators voted against the amend¬ 
ment to reform the rules, and for the Alderman brewery 
bill. The exceptions will be noted. The numerous elec¬ 
tion measures, the distance tariff, and the tonnage tax, 
seem to afford about the best tests by which to judge 
members. The same Senate voted on the vicious Hinton 
bill discussed in the chapter on Direct Legislation and 
Protection Pledges. 

J. J. Ahmann, 54th District, Stearns County. —Insur¬ 
gent; voted for state wide primary, direct election of 
United States senators, and against repeal of corrupt 
practices act and primary election law; stood for distance 
tariff; did not vote on tonnage law. 

S. S. Alderman, 48th District, Brainerd. —Reactionary 
leader; voted against all progressive measures and with 
the combination from start to finish; was author of Ald¬ 
erman brewery bill, discussed in chapter on Saloons and 
the Legislature, 

B. N. Anderson, 9th District, Albert Lea. —Voted for 
tonnage tax and extension of primary; was opposed to 
the distance tariff; voted for Hinton bill. 

S. B. Bedford, 15th District, Nobles County. —Insurgent; 
voted against the combination on everything except ex¬ 
tension of the primary. 

J. Q. Briggs, 1st District, Houston County. —Stood for 
direct election of United States senators; was for repeal 
of primary election law; opposed to all progressive elec¬ 
tion measures; voted against the distance tariff; was for 
the tonnage tax; voted for Hinton bill. 

A. S. Campbell, 6th District, Austin. —Reactionary lead¬ 
er; stood with the combination against all progressive 
measures except the tonnage tax; was chairman of the 
temperance committee and one of the champions of the 
saloon program; voted for the Hinton bill. 

G. C. Carpenter, 46th District, Wright County.— Was for 
repeal of the primary election law and against all pro¬ 
gressive election measures; supported the tonnage tax. 


122 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


O. O. Canestorp, 57th District, Grant County. —Insur¬ 
gent leader; was consistently oposed to Smith and the 
interests on every issue. Voted against the Alderman 
brewery bill. 

E. H. Canfield, 16th District, Rock County.— Insurgent 
leader; was opposed to the combination on everything ex¬ 
cept the repal of the primary election law; was the au¬ 
thor of S. F. No. 3, one of the most important measures 
of the session, which provided for a limit to the time 
when new bills could be introduced. This needed change 
is discussed in the chapter on “A Few Fundamental Re¬ 
forms.” Canfield was the author of several reform meas¬ 
ures and was one of the ablest champions of the people 
in the Senate. 

T. E. Cashman, 8th District, Owatonna. —Strong insur¬ 
gent leader; voted for reform rules; stood consistently 
against the pool; was opposed to repeal of primary; for 
all progressive election measures; is discussed in chap¬ 
ter on The Railroad Ring in Two Sessions; was author 
and champion of the distance tariff bill and secured the 
enactment of an amendment improving the commodity 
rate law of the previous session; took a leading part in 
the fight for the tonnage tax and after the defeat of that 
measure offered a resolution calling upon the Tax Com¬ 
mission to raise the tax assessment on the iron ore lands 
to at least $300,000,000. 

Frank Clague, 19th District, Redwood County. —Reac¬ 
tionary; took a prominent part in the fight for the ton¬ 
nage tax; otherwise stood with the pool; was for repeal 
of primary, and opposed to the extension of the law to 
the nomination of state officers; did not'vote on the re¬ 
peal of corrupt practices act. Clague led the fight against 
the distance tariff bill. 

Julius A. Coller, 26th District, Scott County. —Voted for 
the distance tariff and the direct election of United States 
senators; but was otherwise allied with the pool; for 
Flinton bill. 

L. O. Cooke, 3rd District, Wabasha County. —Did not 

vote on distance tariff; voted for the tonnage tax; was 
generally with the pool; voted for Hinton bill. 

O. G. Dale, 18th District, Lac Qui Parle County. —In¬ 
surgent; voted against Alderman brewery bill and was 
otherwise opposed to the pool except on the distance 
tariff. 

C. R. Donaldson, 24th District, McLeod County. —Stood 
for all progressive election measures and against repeal 
of the primary; supported the tonnage tax, but did not 
vote on the distance tariff. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 123 


F. E. Du Toit, 25th District, Carver County. —Stood for 
the direct election of United States senators and exten¬ 
sion of the primary; voted against the distance tariff and 
tonnage tax. 

R. G. Farrington, 56th District, Big Stone County. —Did 

not vote on repeal of primary or extension of the law 
to state officers; was for the distance tariff and the ton¬ 
nage tax; voted for Hinton bill. Farrington stood con¬ 
spicuously for the saloon program and attracted some at¬ 
tention by defending the cigarette. 

Geo. H. French, 2nd District, Winona. —Reactionary; 
stood conspicuously with the combination on every is¬ 
sue. 

F. L. Glotzbach, 26th District, Faribault. —Stood on the 
progressive side of all election measures except that he 
supported the repeal of the corrupt practices act; voted 
for the distance tariff and the tonnage tax; opposed the 
Hinton bill. 

C. J. Gunderson, 58th District, Alexandria. —Insurgent 
leader; took a prominent part in the fight for the tonnage 
tax and supported the distance tariff; was opposed to the 
repeal of the primary election law, but did not favor its 
extension and the direct election of United States sen¬ 
ators; voted against Hinton bill. 

D. M. Gunn, 52nd District, Itasca County. —Reactionary 
leader; discussed in chapter on Log Rolling; had charge 
of the Cass Lake Normal School bill and traded it through 
the Senate; voted for Hinton bill; stood with the pool on 
every issue. 

D. S. Hall, 22nd District, Renville County.— Reactionary 
leader; special champion of the railroad ring, for which 
he labored as chairman of the committee on railroads; led 
effort to repeal corrupt practices act; voted against the 
tonnage tax; was for Hinton bill: should be ranked as one 
of the “big four” in the Senate combine. 

A. L. Hanson, 61st District, Norman County. —Insur¬ 
gent leader; voted against the pool on every issue; was 
one of the six to vote for rules reform; opposed the Ald¬ 
erman brewery bill and the Hinton bill. 

H. E. Hanson, 14th District, Cottowood County. —Voted 
for repeal of both primary election law and the corrupt 
practices act; stood for direct legislation of United States 
senators and extension of primary; voted against the dis¬ 
tance tariff and the tonnage tax. 

W. A. Hinton, 13th District, Martin County.— Reaction¬ 
ary leader; stood consistently for the pool except on ton¬ 
nage tax; was author of the attempt to “muzzle the 
masses” discussed in chapter or direct legislation and pre- 


124 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


election pledges; was one of Smith’s leading lieutenants. 

C. A. Johnson, 20th District, Nicollet County.—Stood for 
tonnage tax, but was otherwise generally opposed to pub¬ 
lic interests. 

V. L. Johnson, 32nd District, Chicago County.—Strong 
insurgent leader; voted against the tonnage tax because 
his constituents demanded it; was ^one of the firmest op¬ 
ponents of the State combine; saved H. F. 169, a bill 
aimed at vicious medical advertising, from being killed in 
Calhoun’s committee on municipal corporations; was al¬ 
ways alert and active in behalf of public interest; voted 
against the Hinton bill. 

James Johnston, 53rd District, Todd County.—Voted 
for repeal of corrupt practices and primary election law; 
did not vote on distance tariff or Hinton bill; would stand 
for public interest if the system were different and the 
combine less powerful. 

John Moonan, 10th District, Waseca County.—Strong 
insurgent leader; opposed the pool throughout his term, 
in Senate; introduced and championed the bill for state 
wide primary in one of the ablest speeches of the session; 
took a prominent part in the battle for a tonnage tax; did 
excellent work for the people in closed committee rooms. 

O. K. Naeseth, 29th District, Goodhue County.—Insur¬ 
gent; was a quiet, determined member who stood con¬ 
sistently against the pool; voted against the Hinton bill. 

S. A. Nelson, 5th District, Fillmore County.—Insurgent; 
did not vote on tonnage tax, but stood generally for the 
public interest; voted against the Hinton bill. 

F. H. Peterson, 60th District, Moorhead.—Insurgent 
leader; was deposed by the combine as chairman of the 
finance committee because of his consistent stand for pub¬ 
lic interest. 

A. A. Poehler, 21st District, Sibley County.—Was for re¬ 
peal of primary and favored its extension and the direct 
election of United States senators; did not vote on dis¬ 
tance tariff; was for the tonnage tax; failed to vote on 
the Hinton bill. 

F. E. Putnam, 12th District, Faribault County.—Reac¬ 
tionary; voted on unprogressive side of all election bills; 
stood with the pool except on the tonnage tax; voted for 
the Hinton bill; gave aid to Smith and the combination 
by leading the fight for an amendment to the Municipal 
Ownership bill passed in 1907. 

J. E. C. Robinson, 47th District, St. Cloud.—Voted for 
distance tariff and stood on progressive side of election 
measures except that he voted for repeal of the corrupt 
practices act; voted against tonnage tax. 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 125 


Ole O, Sageng, 59th District, Ottertail County.—Strong 

insurgent leader; is discussed in chapter on Log Rolling; 
led fight for rules reform and stood as the foremost cham¬ 
pion of a more deliberate Senate; fought the Hinton bill 
and opposed the Senate coml)ine on every issue. 

Albert Schaller, 30th District, Hastings. —Voted for 
progressive election measures, otherwise stood with the 
pool; opposed the tonnage tax; did not vote on Hinton 
bill. 

V. B. Seward, 17th District, Lyon County. —Reaction¬ 
ary; kept his record fairly clean, but did questionable work 
in committee; voted for the tonnage tax and distance 
tariff; was opposed to repeal of primary election and stood 
for its extension; was special champion of the existing 
system in the contest to reform the rules; voted for the 
notorious Hinton bill. 

A. D. Stephens, 62nd District, Crookston. —One of the 

main props in the Senate combine; chairman of finance 
committee, from which pivotal position he traded in ap¬ 
propriations for the pool; always stood with Smith and 
the interests; voted for the Hinton bill. 

G. H. Sullivan, 31st District, Stillwater.— Reactionary; 
consistent supporter of the pool; led the fight against 
tonnage tax. 

B. E. Sundberg, 63rd District, Kittson County. —Insur¬ 
gent leader; always alert and active for public interest; 
voted for reform of rules; was consistently opposed to 
the pool; did excellent service for the people in the 1907 
session as chairman of special Senate committee to in¬ 
vestigate the physical value of the railroads in Minnesota. 
The people had no more loyal champion in the Senat.e 

C. J. Swanson, 45th District, Anoka County. —Not a very 
active member; generally stood with the pool. 

L. O. Thorpe, 55th District, Kandiyohi County. —Was 
for tonnage tax; opposed progressive election measures; 
voted against the Alderman brewery bill. 

H. T. Weis, 27th District, Le Sueur County. —Was for 
progressive election measures and supported the distance 
tariff and tonnage tax; voted against the Hinton bill. 

D. E. White, 7th District, Dodge County.— Was opposed 
to repeal of primary and also to its extension and the 
direct election of United States senators; voted for the 
distance tariff and tonnage tax. 

H. H. Witherstine, 4th District, Olmstead County.— 
Strongly supported the distance tariff; was opposed to 
progressive election measures; voted for the tonnage tax 
on its final passage, but joined in the attempt to defeat 


126 The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 


the bill by referring it to the Tax Commission. Voted 
against the Hinton bill. 

S. D. Works, 11th District, Blue Earth County. —Reac¬ 
tionary; voted for progressive election measures, opposed 
the tonnage tax and was useful to the pool on several 
issues; supported the distance tariff. 

J. W. Wright, 23rd District, Meeker County. —Was op¬ 
posed to the pool except on election measures; supported 
the tonnage tax and the distance tariff; voted against the 
Hinton bill. 

THE DULUTH SENATORS. 

Geo. R. Laybourn, T. M. Pugh and P. R. Vail repre¬ 
sented St. Louis county and the steel trust in the Senate. 
All stood with the pool on everything. Laybourn was 
the most active of the three. 

ST. PAUL SENATORS. 

W. W. Dunn, 33rd District. —Special representative and 
lobbyist for brewery interests; with the combine always. 

E. S. Durment, 36th District. —Reactionary; with the 
pool; voted for Hinton bill. 

Jos. M. Hackney, 37th District. —Only insurgent sen¬ 
ator from Ramsey county; stood consistently against the 
saloon program and opposed the Hinton bill; introduced 
several bills in the interest of the agricultural classes; has 
an excellent record. 

John C. Hardy, 35th District. —Reactionary; stood with 
the pool except on election bills; voted for Hinton bill. 

Henry McColl, 34th District. —Reactionary, except on 
election bills; voted for Hinton bill. 

MINNEAPOLIS SENATORS. 

J. F. Calhoun, 40th District. —A tool and lieutenant of 
Smith; rarely willingly voted for the public interest on 
anything; as chairman of committee on municipal corpo¬ 
rations he gave consistent service to every public service 
company having a bill come into his hands; not so smooth 
as Smith, but almost as dangerous, because more willing 
to work out in the open; voted for Hinton bill. 

J. T. Elwell, 39th District. —Insurgent; opposed to the 
pool; voted against Alderman brewery bill and Hinton 
bill; was author and champion of Eminent Domain bill 
against the Gas Trust; stood conspicuously for the people. 

M. L. Fosseen, 42nd District, —Insurgent; voted for ton¬ 
nage tax; opposed the combine; voted against Hinton bill; 
was author of a bill to prohibit use of basements for 
schools; was always active in the public interest. 

J. W. Pauly, 44th District. —Stood for progressive elec- 


The Minnesota Legislature of 1909 127 


tion measures; championed a bill for a state printing plant; 
/oted against Hinton bill. 

J. L. McGowan, 38th District. —Voted for progressive 
election bills and the tonnage tax; opposed the Hinton bill; 
was absent during much of the last session. 

E. E. Smith, 43rd District. —The recognized leader of the 
corporation forces in the legislature; needs no detailed 
mention here because preceding chapters have shown his 
powers and pernicious public character; voted for Hinton 
bill. 

Geo. P. Wilson, 41st District. —Generally with the pool; 
filled position of great responsibility and power as chair¬ 
man of Senate Judiciary Committee; did not vote on Hin¬ 
ton bill. 


JAN 2.71910^ 


CONTENTS 

Foreword.3 

In the Beginning.5 

Corporation, Politcians and the Press.II 

The Speakership.15 

How the House was Organized.20 

Smith and the Senate.22 

New Members and the System.26 

Reforming the Rules.32 

The Battle for a Tonnage Tax.35 

The Railroad Ring in Two Sessions.43 

Saloons and the Legislature.59 

The Street Railway’s Legislative Program .69 

District Legislation and Pre-election Pledges .75 

Woman Suffrage.81 

The Pool and the Primary.84 

Log Rolling—An Example and a Remedy.89 

Minneapolis and the Gas Trust.94 

Supplies and Employees.98 

A Few Fundamental Reforms. 104 

A Characterization of Members..;..106 






































